RAJESH BHASKAR,DELHI V. DCIT, CIRCLE-28(1),DELHI, DELHI

SA 84/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Dr. Rakesh Gupta, a senior citizen and former Research Scientist in the Pharmaceutical Industry, who sought a stay against the recovery of an outstanding tax demand for the assessment year 2018-19. The demand arose from additions made by the AO during the scrutiny assessment, which included unexplained additions to the capital account and double additions of income already declared by the assessee. The Tribunal heard arguments from both the assessee's counsel and the department's representative, ultimately deciding to grant the stay based on the prima facie merits of the case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 472466 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMIT KATOCH
• Keywords: Business income; Application of stay
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िदʟी पीठ “ए”, िदʟी ŵी िवकास अव̾थी, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं नवीन चंū, लेखाकार सद˟ क े समƗ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SA No. 84/Del/2025 (Arising out of ITA No. 195/Del/2025, A.Y 2018-19) Rajesh Bhaskar, Pharma R and D Advisor, R/o-A-7, National Institute of Immunology, JNU Complex, Aruna Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi 110067 PAN: AAFPB9634C ...... आवेदक/Applicant बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 28(1), Delhi ..... ᮧितवादी/Respondent आवेदक/Applicant : Dr. Rakesh Gupta S/Shri Somil Agarwal & Deepesh Garg, Advocates ŮितवादीȪारा/Respondent by : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR सुनवाई कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 21/02/2025 घोषणा कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement : 21/02/2025 आदेश/ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: This application has been filed by the assessee seeking stay of recovery of outstanding demand of Rs.11,17,06,405/-, for assessment year 2018-19. 2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a senior citizen and a Research Scientist engaged in Pharmaceutical Industry for more than 30 years. Between the years from 2014 to 2017, the assessee was employed overseas and was filing return of income in the status of ‘Non-Resident’. Post retirement in the year 2017, 2 SA No.84/DEL/2025 the assessee started providing consultancy services in the field of Scientific Research & Development to Pharmaceutical industry. The assessee filed its return of income for AY 2018-19 on 13.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs.88,49,170/-. The Assessing Officer in scrutiny assessment proceedings made addition of Rs.10,46,79,566/- on account of alleged unexplained addition to capital account u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The ld. Counsel further submitted that the AO made addition of income which was already declared by the assessee in the return of income. Hence, double addition was made on account of income from house property, Business Income and Other Income viz interest. The AO further made addition in respect of receipts that were exempt in the impugned assessment year viz. Long Term Capital Gain on sale of listed shares, maturity of Life Insurance Policy, Dividend from shares, etc. The ld. Counsel pointed that apart from above, the AO made addition of all the assets which were acquired by the assessee in preceding assessment years. He contended that all the relevant information was provided to the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A), without appreciating the facts the AO made addition and CIT(A) confirmed the same. The ld. Counsel for the assessee asserted that the assessee has prima facie good case on merits; the assessee is a victim of high pitched assessment made without proper application of mind. He, thus, prayed for stay of recovery of outstanding demand. 3. Shri Amit Katoch, representing the department vehemently opposed the Stay Application. He contended that if at all benefit of stay is to be allowed to the assessee, the assessee may be directed to deposit at least 20% of outstanding demand for the impugned assessment year. 3 SA No.84/DEL/2025 4. Both sides heard. Prima facie, we are of considered view that the assessee deserves the benefit of stay on recovery of outstanding demand for impugned assessment year. The recovery of outstanding demand is stayed for a period of 180 days from the date of this order or till the disposal of appeal, whichever is earlier. 5. The Registry is directed to fix appeal for hearing on 02.04.2025. Since, the date of hearing of appeal has been announced in the open court, issuance of separate notice of hearing to the parties is dispensed with. 6. Paper book, if any; be filed on or before the next date of hearing with an advance copy to the opposite side, in accordance with ITAT Rules. 7. In the result, Stay Application of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on Friday the 21st day of February, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (NAVEEN CHANDRA) (VIKAS AWASTHY) लेखाकार सद˟/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ɋाियक सद˟/JUDICIAL MEMBER िदʟी / Delhi, ᳰदनांक/Dated 21/02/2025 NV/- ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषतCopy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ/The Appellant , 2. ᮧितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. The PCIT/CIT(A) 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., िदʟी /DR, ITAT, िदʟी 5. गाडᭅ फाइल/Guard file. 4 SA No.84/DEL/2025 BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, DELHI "