LG ELECTRONICS INC., KOREA (LGEK),NOIDA V. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

SA 435/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves M/S LG Electronics Inc., which filed stay applications seeking an extension on the recovery of outstanding tax demands for several assessment years. The Tribunal had previously granted stays based on the prima facie case presented by the assessee, which were extended multiple times. The key issue was whether the deposits held by the assessee's subsidiary with the Department were sufficient to secure the interest of the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that the Department had not contested the sufficiency of the funds, leading to the decision to extend the stay.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 652764 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 16-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR DHANESTA
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY VOHRA
• Keywords: Application of stay; Extension of stay
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘D’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Stay Application Nos. 434 to 437/Del/2024 (In ITA Nos. 7011, 7012/Del/2019,179/Del/2021 & 1034/Del/2023) [Asstt. Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 And 2020-21] M/S LG ELECTRONICS INC., C/O Ankur Goel, Advocate, AZB & PARTNERS, A-8, SECTOR-4, NOIDA UTTAR PRADESH – 201 301 Vs DCIT, INT. TAXATION CIRCLE-2(2)(1), NEW DELHI PAN- AAACL7929E Appellant Respondent Appellant by Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Shri Ankur Goel, Adv. & Shri Adwiteya Grover, Adv. Respondent by Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 16.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 16.06.2025 ORDER PER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, AM, This bunch of four stay applications have been filed by the assessee seeking extension of stay on recovery of outstanding demand pertaining to the Assessment Years 2015-16 to 2017-18 and 2020-21 respectively. The details of original stay granted and its latest extension order for all the above assessment years are tabulated as below:- 2 SA No.434 To 437/Del/2024 Sr. No. SA No. AY First order dates granting stay in Stay Application No. Last Extension order in Stay Application No. ITA Nos. Demand (in Rs.) 1 434/Del/2024 2015-16 02.12.2019 in SA No.880/Del/2019 10.05.2024 in SA No.143/Del/2024 7011/Del/2019 2,89,80,240/- 2 435/Del/2024 2016-17 02.12.2019 in SA No.881/Del/2019 10.05.2024 in SA No.144/Del/2024 7012/Del/2019 2,84,73,755/- 3 436/Del/2024 2017-18 12.03.2021 in SA No.37/Del/2021 10.05.2024 in SA No.145/Del/2024 179/Del/2021 1,36,66,172/- 4 437/Del/2024 2020-21 18.05.2023 in SA No.177/Del/2023 10.05.2024 in SA No.146/Del/2024 1034/Del/2024 3,02,27,435/- 2. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. It is noticed that while considering the initial stay applications filed by the assessee, the Tribunal taking note of the prima facie case made out by the assessee granted stay on recovery of the outstanding demand, which has been extended from time to time and the last stay order extending stay was passed on 10.05.2024 vide Stay Application Nos. 143 to 146/Del/2024. 3. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that subsequently the stay on recovery of outstanding demand for these assessment years was extended from time to time and lastly vide common order dated 10.05.2024 in SA Nos.143 to 146/Del/2024, the Tribunal extended the stay on recovery of outstanding demands for a further period of 180 days. 4. During the course of hearing of the above Stay Applications on 25.04.2025, it was noted as under:- These four stay applications have been filed by the assessee bearing number (s) SA Nos. 434-437/De1/2025 assessment year(s): 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2020-21 respectively seeking extension of stay on recovery of outstanding demand. It 3 SA No.434 To 437/Del/2024 is observed that initially original stay on recovery of demand was granted by Tribunal with condition that the assessee's subsidiary had deposits of Rs. 28.62 crores with the Department and assessee's subsidiary will not seek refund of the said amount. The said amount was considered to be sufficient to secure the interest of Revenue. The assessee was also directed to file undertaking in writing with the department to that effect. The assessee has stated that there is some refund granted by department out of the above 28.62 crores, and approx. Rs. 14 crores is held by the department. The current status of the amount held by the department is required to be filed by the department vis-à-vis outstanding demand, and whether the said amount is sufficient to secure the interest of Revenue. Both the parties are directed to file complete status of outstanding demand and the deposits held by the department, and how it is sufficient to secure the interest of Revenue. Fresh undertaking acceptable to the Department is to be filed by the assessee. Adjourned to 9.5.2025. 5. The record of proceedings reveal that vide order-sheet entry dated 09.05.2025, the Revenue was again directed to comply with earlier direction dated 25.04.2025 of the Bench. However, the said details were not filed by the Department. Therefore, the submission of the assessee that out of the deposits of Rs.28.62 Crores of the assessee’s subsidiary with the Department an approximate amount of Rs.14 crores was still held by the Department remains uncontroverted. The total demand for all the above four years amounts to Rs.10.11 crores and the amount of Rs.14 Crores still held by the Department is sufficient to cover the above demand of Rs.10.11 Crores. 6. The ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the corresponding appeals, when listed, stood adjourned but not at the behest of the assessee and delay in disposal of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee. 7. We were informed, now the appeals are fixed for hearing on 02.07.2025. 4 SA No.434 To 437/Del/2024 8. Keeping in view, the aforesaid factual positions, we are inclined to extend the stay for a further period of 180 days or till the disposal of the appeals, whichever is earlier. 9. In the result, all the stay applications are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16th June, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- [CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD] [BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 16.06.2025 Shekhar Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi "