RAMESH PURSHOTTAM MODI,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE 22(1), MUMBAI

SA 132/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Ramesh Purshottam Modi, the appellant, who sought a stay on the recovery of a substantial tax and interest demand from the Income Tax Officer, Mumbai, pertaining to the Assessment Year 2015-16. The appellant argued that the issue was covered by a precedent set by the Bombay High Court in 'Karan Maheshwari vs. ACIT'. Additionally, the appellant had already paid a significant portion of the demand and requested the adjustment of future refunds against the outstanding demand. The Departmental Representative opposed the stay, but the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, citing a strong prima facie case and the balance of convenience.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 782432 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 24-10-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Karan Maheshwari vs. ACIT [2024] 465 ITR 232 (Bom)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KRISHNA KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHWANI KUMAR
• Keywords: Application of stay

Judgement Text

" Page | 1 S.A. No.132/Mum/2025 Ramesh Purshottam Modi Vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, V.P. AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, AM S.A. No. 132/MUM/2025 [ITA No.6577/Mum/2025] A.Y. 2015-16 Ramesh Purshottam Modi, 303, Modi House, Linking Road, Khar West, Mumbai Income Tax Officer, Circle-22(1), Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN AAHPM 2793F Assessee by Shri Ashwani Kumar (virtually appeared) Aditya Kumar & Ms. Deepali Agarwal Revenue by Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. AR) Date of hearing 31.10.2025 Date of pronouncement 31.10.2025 O R D E R Captioned application has been filed by the assessee, seeking stay on recovery of demand of Rs.27,90,43,888/-, comprising of tax component of Rs.16,72,08,354/- and interest of Rs.11,18,35,534/-, pertaining to Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the assessee has a strong prima facie case as the issue in dispute Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 S.A. No.132/Mum/2025 Ramesh Purshottam Modi Vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai is squarely covered by a decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of ‘Karan Maheshwari vs. ACIT’ reported in [2024] 465 ITR 232 (Bom). Thus, he submitted, the balance of convenience also lies in favour of the assessee. Without prejudice, he submitted that post assessment, the assessee has paid an amount of Rs.4,76,13,750/- out of the tax demand and has also intimated, the Assessing Officer to adjust crystalized refund due of Rs.1,54,74,561/- pertaining to Assessment Years 2018-19, 2022-23 and 2024-25 against the demand of the impugned assessment year. He submitted, 20% of the demand raised for the impugned assessment year works out to Rs.5,58,08,700/-. Whereas, the demand already paid by the assessee along with the refund to be adjusted would be more than the amount of 20%. Thus, he submitted, the recovery of the balance outstanding demand be stayed till the disposal of the appeal. 3. The learned DR opposed grant of stay. 4. Having considered rival submissions, we are of the view that the assessee has made out a strong prima-facie case and balance of convenience in his favour. Further, keeping in view, the submission of the assessee that more than 20% of the Printed from counselvise.com Page | 3 S.A. No.132/Mum/2025 Ramesh Purshottam Modi Vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai outstanding demand has been paid by the assessee, we are inclined to grant stay, subject to condition that the Assessing Officer should ensure adjustment of refund of the amount as requested by the assessee, if it has not already been adjusted. Subject to 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. Perusal of record reveals that the appeal stands fixed for hearing on 17.12.2025. Parties are directed to file the paper books if any, sufficiently ahead of the date of hearing of appeal. It is expected that the parties will not take any unnecessary adjournment and proceed with the hearing of the appeal on the date fixed. 5. With the aforesaid observations, stay application stands allowed in the terms indicated above. Order pronounced in the open court on 31/10/2025. Sdd/- Sd/- Sd/- (GIRISH AGRAWAL) Sd/- (SAKTIJIT DEY ) (Accountant MEMBER) (VICE PRESIDENT) Mumbai, Dated: 31.10.2025 Aks/- Printed from counselvise.com Page | 4 S.A. No.132/Mum/2025 Ramesh Purshottam Modi Vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai Copy of the Order forwarded to : The Appellant, The Respondent, The CIT, The DR ITAT & Guard File BY ORDER, True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "