PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI V. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, NA

SA 78/MUM/2025

AI Insights

Piramal Enterprises Limited filed a Stay Application seeking an extension of the stay on the recovery of an outstanding demand of 59,25,08,353 arising from the Assessment Year 2020-21. The Tribunal had previously granted a conditional stay, directing the Assessing Officer to adjust only 20% of the outstanding demand against a refund due for the Assessment Year 2005-06. However, the Revenue adjusted the entire refund against the demand, leading to an excess adjustment. The Tribunal found that the delay in the appeal's disposal was not due to the assessee but rather the Revenue's requests for adjournments. The Tribunal decided to extend the stay on the same terms as before, with additional directions to prevent any further coercive recovery.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 827230 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 09-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 03-07-2025
• Other Referred Cases: CIT v. Roca Bathroom Products Pvt. Ltd., ACIT (International Taxation) v. Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd.
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURENDRA MOHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: RONAK DOSHI
• Keywords: Recovery proceedings; Application of stay; Extension of stay

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘J’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SA No.78/Mum/2025 (Arising out of ITA No.4754/Mum/2024) (Assessment Year :2020-21) Piramal Enterprises Limited Piramal Ananta, Agastya Corporate Park Kamani Junc, LBC Marg Opp. Fire Brigade, Kurla, Mumbai- 400 070 Vs. DCIT, Circle 8(2)(1) Mumbai PAN/GIR No.AAACN4538P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Ronak Doshi and Shri Nisarg Shah Revenue by Shri Surendra Mohan Date of Hearing 29/08/2025 Date of Pronouncement 09/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): By way of the present Stay Application, the applicant- assessee seeks extension of stay of recovery of outstanding demand aggregating to ₹59,25,08,353/- arising out of the assessment for Assessment Year 2020-21, which stay had earlier been granted by the Tribunal subject to conditions. Printed from counselvise.com SA No. 78/Mum/2025 Piramal Enterprises Limited 2 2. At the outset, the learned Authorised Representative invited our attention to the stay order passed by the Tribunal dated 17 January 2025 in S.A. No.135/Mum/2024. It was submitted that after considering the rival submissions, the prima facie merits of the case, the balance of convenience, and the potential hardship that could ensue in the event of coercive recovery, the Tribunal had directed the Assessing Officer to adjust only 20 percent of the outstanding demand of the impugned assessment year against the refund due to the assessee for Assessment Year 2005-06, and had granted stay of recovery of the balance demand for a stipulated period. 3. For the sake of completeness, the relevant portion of the said stay order reads as under: “Having considered rival submissions, we are of the view that at this stage, the merits of the additions made cannot be gone into, which can only be examined at the time of hearing of the appeal. However, after considering the prima facie case, balance of convenience and other relevant factors, we are inclined to grant conditional stay, with a direction to the Assessing Officer to adjust 20% of the outstanding demand out of the refund due of ₹43.36 crores pertaining to A.Y. 2005-06. Subject to the above, recovery of the balance outstanding demand shall be stayed for a period of 180 days from the date of this order or till the disposal of the corresponding appeal, whichever is earlier. In the event of any unnecessary adjournment being sought by the assessee, the stay granted shall be vacated.” 4. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that subsequent to the passing of the aforesaid stay order, the appeal was listed on several occasions. It was pointed out that on four occasions the matter was adjourned at the instance of Printed from counselvise.com SA No. 78/Mum/2025 Piramal Enterprises Limited 3 the Revenue, and on the last three occasions, adjournments were sought on the ground that the issue involved is stated to be pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roca Bathroom Products Private Limited. 5. It was further submitted that, despite the clear and unequivocal direction contained in the stay order, the Revenue proceeded to adjust the entire refund pertaining to Assessment Year 2005-06 against the impugned demand, instead of restricting the adjustment to 20 percent of the outstanding demand, resulting in excess adjustment of ₹25,55,26,240/-. On this basis, a request was made that appropriate directions be issued for refund of the excess amount so adjusted. 6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. At the outset, we find that the factual matrix clearly establishes that the delay in disposal of the appeal cannot be attributed to the assessee. On the contrary, the record reveals that on repeated occasions, the Revenue itself sought adjournments, primarily on the ground that instructions had been received not to argue matters involving the issue of limitation, particularly in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT v. Roca Bathroom Products Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2022) 445 ITR 537 and the subsequent developments flowing from the decision of the Tribunal in ACIT (International Taxation) v. Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd. reported in (2025) 177 taxmann.com 262. Printed from counselvise.com SA No. 78/Mum/2025 Piramal Enterprises Limited 4 7. It is this very legal uncertainty, coupled with the Revenue’s repeated requests for adjournment, that constituted the foundational basis for grant of stay in the first instance. These circumstances continue to prevail even as on date. There is nothing on record to indicate any change in the factual or legal position so as to warrant a departure from the view earlier taken by the Tribunal. The considerations relating to prima facie case, balance of convenience, and avoidance of irreparable hardship therefore continue to operate in favour of the assessee. 8. As regards the grievance raised by the assessee concerning adjustment of refund beyond the extent permitted by the earlier stay order, we are conscious of the fact that the total demand involved is substantial and that a significant portion thereof has already been adjusted. However, at this stage, when the appeal is ripe for hearing, we are of the considered view that issuance of a direction for immediate refund of the excess adjustment may not be appropriate. At the same time, it cannot be lost sight of that any further coercive action would upset the equilibrium sought to be maintained by the stay order and would defeat the very purpose for which the stay was granted. 9. In these circumstances, while extending the stay of recovery on the same terms and conditions as earlier granted, we deem it necessary, in the interest of justice and fair play, to ensure that the assessee is adequately protected from any coercive recovery during the pendency of the appeal. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to furnish a Printed from counselvise.com SA No. 78/Mum/2025 Piramal Enterprises Limited 5 categorical and unconditional undertaking before this Tribunal that no coercive recovery proceedings whatsoever shall be initiated or continued against the assessee during the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal. 10. We also place both the parties on clear notice that the appeal shall be taken up for hearing on priority and that no adjournment shall be entertained except for reasons beyond the control of the parties. Any unwarranted adjournment shall entail appropriate consequences in accordance with law. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the stay of recovery of the outstanding demand is extended on the same terms and conditions as contained in the earlier stay order, subject to the directions and observations made hereinabove. 12. In the result, the Stay Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Order pronounced on 9th January, 2026. Sd/- (PRABHASH SHANKAR) Sd/- (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 09/01/2026 KARUNA, sr.ps Printed from counselvise.com SA No. 78/Mum/2025 Piramal Enterprises Limited 6 Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Printed from counselvise.com "