KOCH BUSINESS SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(3)(1), BANGALORE

SA 40/BANG/2025

AI Insights

Koch Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. filed a stay petition in relation to an outstanding demand for the assessment year 2021-22, arguing that the assessment order was passed beyond the permissible time limit, referencing a decision by the Hon'ble Madras High Court. The Department of Revenue (DR) sought adjournments, claiming an appeal against the Madras High Court's decision was pending before the Supreme Court. The Tribunal found that the issue was covered in favor of the assessee and that the Department's adjournments were causing delays, not the assessee's actions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 705350 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Other Referred Cases: M/s. Roca Bathroom Products Pvt. Ltd. [TS- 473-SC-2022 (Mad)]
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Application of stay

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SP No.40/BANG/2025 [ in ITA No.2434/Bang/2024 ] Assessment year : 2021-22 Koch Business Solutions India Private Limited, Pine Block, Kalyani Platina, Whitefield S.O., Thubarahalli, Bangalore – 560 066. PAN: AAGCK 8362E Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(3)(1), Bengaluru. APPLICANT RESPONDENT Applicant by : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Swaroop Mannava, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 27.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, Vice President 1. This stay petition is filed by Koch Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. (the assessee/applicant) in ITA No.2434/Bang/2024 for the assessment year 2021-22 which is pending for hearing and on earlier 4 occasions, the ld. DR has sought adjournment for the reason that assessee has raised additional ground of appeal stating that the order passed by the ld. AO is barred by limitation and SA No.40/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 4 liable to be quashed based on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s. Roca Bathroom Products Pvt. Ltd., seeking a stay of demand of Rs.16,32,13,990. 2. The facts stated before us show that additional ground is raised by the assessee challenging that the order is barred by limitation by way of additional ground of appeal. Though such additional ground is required to be adjudicated at the time of hearing of appeal, but for the stay petition the facts show that the assessment order was passed on 24.10.2024 and direction of DRP was issued on 5.9.2024 in the draft assessment order dated 8.12.2023. According to the ld. AR, the final assessment order should have been passed by 31.12.2023. Therefore relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court, assessment order is barred by limitation. The assessee is ready to argue the case on this ground, however, the ld. DR is seeking adjournment and therefore there is no fault of the assessee for pendency of the appeal. Thus, complete stay needs to be granted. 3. The ld. DR vehemently submitted that the assessee must pay at least 20% of the outstanding demand and only then the application of stay can be considered. 4. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the ld. lower authorities. We find that assessee has raised additional ground of appeal wherein it has been claimed that the assessment order should have been passed on or before 31.12.2023, SA No.40/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 4 but has been passed only on 24.10.2024 and therefore it is barred by limitation. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in M/s. Roca Bathroom Products Pvt. Ltd. [TS- 473-SC-2022 (Mad)] wherein in such situation, the issue is covered at present in favour of assessee. The Revenue also could not show us any reason that the above decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court does not apply to the facts of the case. Even on last 4 occasions at the time of hearing of the appeal, the Revenue specifically sought adjournment claiming that appeal of the Revenue against that order of the Hon’ble Madras High Court is pending decision before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus, the claim of assessee is that issue is covered in favour of assessee has not been controverted by the Revenue. Therefore, prima facie, balance of convenience lies in favour of assessee. For the disposal of appeal, it is the ld. DR who is taking adjournment. Therefore, delay in disposal of the appeal is also not attributable to the assessee. 5. As the issue is covered in favour of assessee is not disputed, we do not agree with the argument of the ld. DR that to obtain the stay against the recovery of demand, assessee must deposit 20% of the outstanding demand. 6. In view of the above facts, we direct the ld. AO to keep the recovery of impugned outstanding demand in abeyance, till the SA No.40/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 4 disposal of appeal or 180 days from the date of this order, whichever is earlier. 7. In the result, the Stay Application is allowed. Pronounced in the open court on this 30th day of June, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- ( KESHAV DUBEY ) ( PRASHANT MAHARISHI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Bangalore, Dated, the 30th June, 2025. /Desai S Murthy / Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Bangalore. "