MUJIB SALMANBHAI PATHAN, Nagpur V. Assistant Commissioner of Inocme Tax Circle -3, Nagpur

ITA 98/NAG/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4890 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-01-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 10-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; TDS
• Section: 54F

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH, NAGPUR (AT E-COURT, PUNE) BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM . / ITA NO.98/NAG/2019 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015-16. MUJIB SALAMBHAI PATHAN, ..APPELLANT. HOUSE NO.242, WARD NO.2, OLD AREA, WARDHA ROAD, BUTIBORI, NAGPUR 441122. PAN : AEFPP0269M. VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3, NAGPUR. ..RESPONDENT. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VEENA AGRAWAL. REVENUE BY : SMT. AGNES P. THOMAS. / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: THE PRESENT STAY PETITION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SEEKING STAY OF THE DEMAND OF RS.23,73,544/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16. 2. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT T HE DEMAND IN QUESTION HAD ARISEN ON ACCOUNT OF DENIAL OF DEDUCTION U/ S 54F OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GRO UND THAT THE ORIGINAL ASSET I.E., THE ASSET WHICH WAS SOLD WAS NOT A CAPIT AL ASSET BUT WAS A BUSINESS ASSET. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE FINDING O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD, AS THE ASSET IN QUESTION WAS BOUGHT IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2004-05 AND SOLD IN THE / DATE OF HEARING : 22.01.2021 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 25.01.2021 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION I.E., AFTER A GAP OF NEARLY TEN YEARS AND THE COST OF THE ASSET WAS SHOWN AS PART OF THE INVESTMENT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE LEARNED CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT OUT OF THE ORIGINAL DEMA ND OF RS.29,80,680/-, A SUM OF RS.5,96,136/- REPRESENTING 20% OF T HE ORIGINAL DEMAND WAS ALREADY PAID. THUS, IT WAS PLEADED TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS A PRIMA FACIE CASE AND HAD PAID 20% OF THE ORIGINAL DEMAND, THEREFORE THE BALANCE OF DEMAND MAY BE STAYED. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED SENIOR DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE OPPOSED THE STAY PETITION ON THE GROUND THAT NO PLEADINGS AS TO THE FINANCIAL HARDSHIP WAS TAKEN. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT ON THE FACTS LEADING TO THE ADDITION IN QUESTION ARE NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. HAVING REGARD TO T HE UNDISPUTED FACTS PLACED BEFORE US, IT APPEARS THAT THERE IS A PRIMA FACIE CASE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHERMORE, SINCE THE ASSESSEE ALREADY PAID 20% OF THE ORIGINAL DEMAND, THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IT IS A FIT CASE TO STAY THE BALANCE OF THE DEMAND FOR A PERIOD O F 180 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER OR TILL DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER. 5. FURTHER, WE DIRECT THE REGISTRY TO POST THE APPEAL FO R HEARING OUT OF TURN BASIS ON 19.02.2021 AND THE ASSESSEE SHALL NOT S EEK ANY ADJOURNMENT FROM THE HEARING OF APPEAL WITHOUT ANY JUS T AND REASONABLE CAUSE. 3 6. THUS, THE STAY PETITION STANDS ALLOWED ON THE ABOVE TERMS. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 25 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021. SD/- SD/- (S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (IN TURI RAMA RAO) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE; DATED : 25 TH JANUARY, 2021. YAMINI !'#$%&%# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. 4. 5 6. CIT(A) - 2 , NAGPUR. THE CIT(TDS), NAGPUR. !''#$,& #$ ,! / DR, ITAT, NAGPUR PUNE; !()*/ GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // + ,-'.#/ / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY & #$ , / ITAT, PUNE.