M/S. XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), , BENGALURU

SA 62/BANG/2024

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, seeking an extension of a stay order previously granted by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The original stay was granted to prevent the recovery of an outstanding demand for the assessment year 2019-20. The Tribunal had earlier found a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and relative hardship justifying the stay. The appellant argued that the delay in disposing of the appeal was not due to their fault and requested an extension of the stay for another 180 days. The Department of Revenue opposed the extension. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and the circumstances, decided to extend the stay, emphasizing that the parameters for the stay had been previously tested and the case was scheduled for a hearing soon.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471036 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 07-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 07-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 30-09-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V. PARITHIVEL
• Assessee Lawyers: A. SHANKAR
• Keywords: Application of stay

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER S.P. No. 62/Bang/2024 (in IT(TP)A No. 213/Bang/2024) Assessment Year : 2019-20 M/s. Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd. Orchid, (Block E), Ground Floor, Embassy Tech Village, Marathalli Outer Ring Road, Bellandur S.O., Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore – 560 103. PAN: AAACX1645B Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri A. Shankar, Sr. Advocate, Shri Harpreet Singh Ajmani & Ms. Karthikka C, Advocates Revenue by : Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT-DR Date of Hearing : 07-10-2024 Date of Pronouncement : 07-10-2024 आदेश/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 ITA vide order dated 08-04-2024 for the stay on the recovery of outstanding demand in SA No. 10/Bang/2024 for 180 days. Page 2 of 3 S.P. No. 62/Bang/2024 (in IT(TP)A No. 213/Bang/2024) 2. At the outset, we note that this Tribunal, by an order dated 08-04-2024, was pleased to grant the stay on the recovery of outstanding demand for captioned assessment year. The order of stay was granted for 180 days or till disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal, whichever is earlier. 3. The ld. 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. Furthermore, the ld. AR also claimed that the delay in not disposing of the appeal by the Tribunal is not attributable on the part of the assessee. Accordingly, the ld. AR prayed that the stay order on the recovery of outstanding demand should be continued in the interest of justice for another 180 days. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. DR before us opposed the extension of the stay order on the recovery of outstanding demand. 5. 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, the stay order passed by the Tribunal was not challenged by the Revenue. 5.1 It is also pertinent to note that the case for hearing has already been listed i.e. 30-10-2024. Accordingly, there is no need to give a fresh 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 its liberty to revoke the stay order. Page 3 of 3 S.P. No. 62/Bang/2024 (in IT(TP)A No. 213/Bang/2024) 5.2 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. 6. In the result, the Stay Application filed by assessee is allowed in terms of above. Order pronounced in the open court on 07th October, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (KESHAV DUBEY) (WASEEM AHMED) Judicial Member Accountant Member Bangalore, Dated, the 07th October, 2024. /MS / Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 5. Guard file 6. CIT(A) By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore "