PAYSWIFF TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD V. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

SA 7/HYD/2026

AI Insights

The case involves Payswift Technologies Private Limited, which sought a stay against an outstanding tax demand of Rs.54,82,28,009 for the assessment year 2022-2023. The assessee had declared a loss and a tax refund in its return, which was initially accepted without adjustments. However, subsequent scrutiny and rectification led to a revised tax demand. The assessee argued that it was eligible for refunds from previous years that could offset the demand. The Revenue opposed the stay, emphasizing the need for verification of the refund claims. The Tribunal decided not to grant the stay but instructed the Assessing Officer to refrain from coercive recovery actions until the scheduled hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 837548 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• Appeal Filed On: 11-02-2026
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V KOTESWARAMMA
• Assessee Lawyers: AJIT JAIN
• Keywords: Competent authority; Application of stay

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S.A.No.7/Hyd./2026 Arising out of आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.2170/Hyd./2025 Assessment Year 2022-2023 Payswift Technologies Private Limited, Hyderabad – 500 034. Telangana. PAN AAGCR5745L vs. The ACIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad. (Applicant) (Respondent) िनधाŊįरती Ȫारा /Assessee by: CA Ajit Jain राज̾ व Ȫारा /Revenue by: MS V Koteswaramma, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 20.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 20.02.2026 आदेश/ORDER PER MANJUNATHA G. A.M. : By this stay application the assessee seeks stay against the recovery of the outstanding demand of Rs.54,82,28,009/-. Printed from counselvise.com 2 SA.No.7/Hyd./2026 2. CA Ajit Jain, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the assessee has filed its return of income for the assessment year 2022-2023 under consideration on 31.10.2022 declaring a loss of Rs.43,41,13,464/- and a tax refundable to the tune of Rs.48 lakhs. However, the assessee has received an intimation u/sec.143(1) of the Income Tax Act [in short \"the Act\"], 1961 dated 11.01.2023 wherein no adjustments were made and on the refund of Rs.48 lakhs interest u/sec.244A at Rs.2,40,000/- was determined. Thereafter, the case of the assessee has been selected for scrutiny and notice u/sec.143(2) of the Act dated 23.06.2023 and show cause notice dated 25.01.2024 was received by the assessee. In response, the assessee has filed its submissions. Thereafter, the NFAC has passed final assessment order dated 20.03.2024 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.56,65,28,828/- after making additions amounting to Rs.100,06,42,292/- to the total income and determined a tax demand of Rs.57,47,93,190/-. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A) on 18.04.2024. The assessee has Printed from counselvise.com 3 SA.No.7/Hyd./2026 also filed rectification petition u/sec.154 of the Act and the assessed income was rectified and the resultant demand was computed to Rs.57,47,93,190/-. The learned CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee vide order dated 30.10.2025. Pursuant to the order of the learned CIT(A), the Assessing Officer has issued an order giving effect along with notice of demand dated 03.11.2025 determining a demand of Rs.54,82,28,009/-. 2.1. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that against the Order of the learned CIT(A) the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal and assessee is eligible to get refund from the Department from the assessment year 2021-2022 to 2024-2025 totalling to Rs.20,23,26,872/-. Therefore, as per the proviso to Sec.254(2A) of the Act a stay on disputed tax demand may be granted by the Tribunal provided the taxpayer deposits at least 20% of such demand or furnishes security of an equivalent amount. He submitted that in light of the above facts, the Tribunal may please grant stay of the outstanding demand of Rs.54,82,28,009/- as the assessee has good prima Printed from counselvise.com 4 SA.No.7/Hyd./2026 facie case and balance of convenience is also in favour of the assessee. He further submitted that the appeal of assessee is listed for hearing on 01.04.2026 and till such time the Assessing Officer may be directed not to take any coercive steps against the recovery of the outstanding demand or in the alternative, an earlier hearing of the appeal may be granted in the interest of substantial justice. 3. MS. V Koteswaramma, learned Sr. AR for the Revenue, on the other hand, has strongly opposed for stay of the outstanding demand. She submitted that the learned CIT(A) has rightly disallowed the claim of the assessee after considering the submissions of the assessee. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer has issued demand notice by giving effect to the order of the learned CIT(A). She submitted that the claim of the assessee that it is eligible for refund and therefore, the assessee is entitled for grant of stay of the outstanding demand cannot be accepted as the refund is subject to verification and examination of the relevant records by the Competent Authority. She, therefore, submitted that the assessee may be directed to pay 25% of Printed from counselvise.com 5 SA.No.7/Hyd./2026 the outstanding demand. She has relied upon the Orders of the authorities below. 4. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the contention of the assessee that it is eligible for refund from the department and, therefore, stay may please be granted against the outstanding demand. However, since the refund is determined by the Assessing Officer it cannot be said that the assessee is having refund adjustment of Rs.20,23,26,872/- from the assessment years 2021-2022 to 2024-2025 and the same can be adjusted against the demand payable. Therefore, on this ground stay for outstanding demand cannot be granted. Further, the fact remains that the appeal of the assessee is listed for hearing on 01.04.2026. The Counsel for the Assessee has made a statement at Bar that the appellant is ready to argue the matter on 01.04.2026 and till such time the Assessing Officer may be directed not to take any coercive steps for recovery of the demand. Therefore, in our considered view, since the appeal of the assessee is already listed for hearing on Printed from counselvise.com 6 SA.No.7/Hyd./2026 01.04.2026, instead of granting stay, it is better to hear the appeal of the assessee and dispose of at the earlier. Further the request of the learned Counsel that a direction may be given to the Assessing Officer for not taking coercive steps for recovery of the demand also needs to be accepted. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances and also in the interest of justice, we direct the Assessing Officer not to take any coercive steps for recovery of the outstanding demand till the next date of hearing. Since the date of hearing is noted by the parties, no fresh notice will be issued. The parties are directed to file paper books if any, well in advance with advance copy to the other party. Accordingly, the stay application of the assessee is dismissed. 5. In the result, stay application of the Assessee is dismissed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court at the conclusion of the hearing i.e., on 20.02.2026. Sd/- Sd/- [VIJAY PAL RAO] [MANJUNATHA G.] VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated 20th February, 2026. VBP Printed from counselvise.com 7 SA.No.7/Hyd./2026 Copy to : 1. Payswift Technologies Private Limited, H.No.8-2- 618/2, 5th Floor, Reliance Humsafar (Edifice), Road No.11, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – 500 034. Telangana. 2. The ACIT, Circle-5(1), IT Towers, Hyderabad. 3. The Pr. CIT, Hyderabad. 4. The DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Hyderabad. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER Printed from counselvise.com VADREVU PRASADA RAO Digitally signed by VADREVU PRASADA RAO Date: 2026.02.23 11:23:39 +05'30' "