M/S. XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE V. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), BANGALORE

SA 2/BANG/2025

AI Insights

In this case, M/s Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd. filed a stay application seeking an extension of the stay order previously granted by the ITAT on July 26, 2024, concerning the recovery of outstanding demand for the assessment year 2018-19. The Tribunal had initially granted the stay for 180 days or until the appeal's disposal, whichever came first. The assessee argued that the delay in resolving the appeal was not their fault and requested an extension of the stay. The Department of Revenue opposed the extension. The Tribunal decided to extend the stay, citing the absence of new conditions and the fact that the case was already scheduled for a hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 37685 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 24-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V PARITHIVEL
• Assessee Lawyers: A SHANKAR; HARPEET SINGH
• Keywords: Application of stay

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER SA No. 02/Bang/2025 (In IT(TP)A No. 455/Bang/2023) Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/s Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd., Orchid, (Block E), Ground Floor, Embassy Tech Village, Marathalli Outer Ring Road, Bellandur S.O, Kadabeesanahalli, Bangalore – 560 103. PAN – AAACX 1645 B Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri A Shankar, Sr. Advocate, Shri Harpeet Singh Ajmani, Shri Madhusudhan UA and Shri Aadith Sridhar – Advocates Revenue by : Shri V Parithivel, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 24.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 24.01.2025 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The assessee, by way of this stay application, prays for the extension of the stay order, which was granted by the ITAT vide order dated 26-07-2024 for the stay on the recovery of outstanding demand in SA No. 36/Bang/2024 for 180 days for the assessment year 2018-19. SA No.02/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 3 . 2. At the outset, we note that this Tribunal, by an order dated 26-07-2024, was pleased to grant the stay on the recovery of outstanding demand for the captioned assessment year. The order of stay was granted for 180 days or till the disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal, whichever is earlier. 3. The Id. AR before us submitted that this Tribunal has already found the existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and relative hardship in the present case, and thereafter, the Tribunal thought it fit to grant an order of stay. 4. Furthermore, the Id. AR also claimed that the delay in not disposing of the appeal by the Tribunal is not attributable to the assessee. Accordingly, the Id. AR prayed that the stay order on the recovery of outstanding demand should be continued in the interest of justice for another 180 days. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR before us opposed the extension of the stay order on the recovery of outstanding demand. 6. We have given very careful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We are of the view that the existence of all conditions for the grant of stay has already been considered by this Tribunal, and at this stage, new conditions cannot be imposed. All the relevant parameters for the stay of recovery of outstanding demand have already been tested by the Tribunal when it originally granted an order of stay on an earlier occasion. Moreover, nothing was brought on record whether the stay order passed by the Tribunal was challenged by the Revenue before the higher forum. 7. It is also pertinent to note that the case for hearing has already been listed, i.e., 28-01-2025. Accordingly, there is no need to give a fresh SA No.02/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 3 . date of the hearing. However, the assessee shall not seek any adjournment on the date of the hearing without just cause. Otherwise, the bench hearing the case shall be at liberty to revoke the stay order. 8. For the reasons given above, we direct that there shall be an order of stay on the recovery of outstanding demand for 180 days or till the disposal of the appeal, whichever is earlier. The fresh stay petition filed by the assessee is accordingly allowed. 9. In the result, the Stay Application filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of the above. Order pronounced in court on 24th day of January, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (SOUNDARARAJAN K) (WASEEM AHMED) Judicial Member Accountant Member Bangalore Dated, 24th January, 2025 / vms / Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore "