RATHI HATCHERIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JIND V. ITO WARD 1, BHIWANI

SA 94/DEL/2026

AI Insights

M/s Rathi Hatcheries Private Limited filed a Stay Application under Rule 35A of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, seeking to stay an outstanding demand for the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee had previously faced additions to their income and disallowances which were upheld by the CIT(A) and partially set aside by the ITAT due to procedural non-compliance. The CIT(A)'s subsequent order was again challenged by the assessee, leading to this Stay Application. The Tribunal, after considering the financial hardship and the procedural history, decided not to grant a stay but to expedite the hearing of the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 838665 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 17-02-2026
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANKUSH KALRA
• Assessee Lawyers: NAMAN TONDON
• Keywords: Set aside; Application of stay

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C-FRIDAY’, NEW DELHI Before Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice President & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Accountant Member SA No. 94/Del/2026 Arising out of ITA No. 990/Del/2026 Asstt. Year: 2014-15 M/s Rathi Hatcheries Private Limited, Sahanpur, Jind, Haryana-126112 [PAN: AACCR8626C] Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bhiwani, SCO 222, Huda Complex, City Center, Sector-15, Bhiwani-127021 Haryana (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. Naman Tondon, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing: 20.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement:20.02.2026 ORDER Per Mahavir Singh, VP: This Stay Application under Rule 35A of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 has been preferred by the assessee, seeking stay of the outstanding demand in dispute for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the original return was filed by the assessee on 28.11.2014 for the AY 2014-15 declaring total income of Rs. 58,68,690. The case of the assessee was selected Printed from counselvise.com 2 for scrutiny and assessment was completed by making additions of Rs. 1,95,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act and Rs. 4,37,786/- towards disallowance of interest expenditure amount. Against the same, assessee appealed before the CIT(A), who passed the order dated 30.10.2023 against the assessee and against which the assessee filed the appeal before the ITAT. the Tribunal vide order dated 18.3.2025 set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. Despite the direction of the ITAT, the CIT(A) passed the order dated 12.11.2025 by observing that submission of PAN, ITR acknowledgements, and bank statement does not discharge the onus, and without pointing any defect in the documents or brining any adverse material on record, he passed a non-speaking and mechanical and against which the Assesee is in second round before the Tribunal. On query from the Bench, the Ld. AR submitted that vide demand notice u/s. 156 of the Act, the total outstanding demand is Rs. 1,20,38,491/-. He further submitted that assessee was entitled to receive a refund of Rs. 12,18,960/- for AY 2020-21, however, the Department has adjusted the said refund of Rs. 12,18,960/- against the disputed demand of Rs. 1,20,38,491/- raised for AY 2014-15. He further submitted that assessee is facing acute financial hardship and due to its constrained financial position, assessee is not in a position to deposit the whole demanded amount. Hence, prayed for grant of stay on the outstanding demand in dispute. In the alternative, he also prayed for early hearing in the corresponding appeal. 3. Ld. DR opposed the request of the Ld. AR for grant of stay of outstanding demand, but could not controvert on the request of the Ld. AR for grant of early hearing in the appeal. Printed from counselvise.com 3 4. After hearing both the parties and perusing the relevant records especially the orders passed by the revenue authorities and the contentions raised by the Assessee in the present Stay Application, we are of the considered view that the assessee has not established any prima facie case for grant of stay towards outstanding demand in dispute, hence, the request for grant of stay on the outstanding demand is rejected. However, in the interest of justice, the alternative request of the assessee for grant of early hearing in the corresponding appeal is allowed. Accordingly, the Registry is directed to fix the Main Appeal being ITA No. 990/Del/2026 (AY. 2014-15) for hearing on 16.03.2026 and inform the parties accordingly. In the meantime, the Ld. AR for the assessee is directed to file the Paper Books, etc. well in time before the ensuing date of hearing, as aforesaid, with the copy to the Ld. DR. 5. In the result, the Assessee’s Stay Application stands dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 20/02/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Renu Jauhri) (Mahavir Singh) Accountant Member Vice President Dated: 20.02.2026 SR BHATNAGAR Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "