ROCKSTAR INTERACTIVE INDIA LLP,BANGALORE V. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BENGALURU

SA 7/BANG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Rockstar Interactive India LLP, which filed a stay petition against an outstanding tax demand of Rs.14,12,99,470 for the assessment year 2021-22. The assessee had already paid 20% of the total tax demand but was required to pay 50% to consider a stay on the remaining demand. The Tribunal considered the precedent set by the Madras High Court in CIT v. Roca Bathroom Products Pvt. Ltd. and noted procedural issues regarding the timeliness of the assessment order under section 153 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments and granted the stay.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 473922 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 19-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Other Referred Cases: CIT v. Roca Bathroom Products Pvt. Ltd. [2021] 127 taxmann.com 332 (Madras)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MANASA
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Application of stay
• Section: 254(2); 153

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER SP No.7/Bang/2025 [in IT(TP)A No.2223/Bang/2024] Assessment year : 2021-22 Rockstar Interactive India LLP, 13th Floor, Tower C, Prestige Shantiniketan, Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bangalore – 560 048. PAN: AATFR 6971J Vs. The Deputy/Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(1), Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Ms. Manasa, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Parithivel V., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 21.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 19.03.2025 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member This stay petition is filed by the assessee praying for stay of outstanding demand of Rs.14,12,99,470 for the AY 2021-22. 2. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has paid already 20% of the total tax demand vide AO’s order dated 18.12.2024 which is placed at page no.226 (Annexure-C) to the stay petition. The AO has not granted stay for the reason that 50% of the SP No.7/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 3 demand may be complied with or may furnish payment plan for 50% of the demand to consider stay of the balance demand. 3. The ld. counsel for the assessee further submitted that the issue in dispute is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Roca Bathroom Products Pvt. Ltd. [2021] 127 taxmann.com 332 (Madras). She further submitted that the AO has passed the order beyond the prescribed time u/s. 153 of the Act. The period of limitation for passing of the final assessment order is 31.12.2023, however the AO has passed the final assessment order on 23.09.2024 which is beyond the period of21 months for the assessment year as per section 153(1) of the Act. The period for passing the assessment order was 9 months and in case of section 153(4), the AO gets 12 months more because the case was referred by the AO to the TPO. However, the AO passed the assessment order on 23.09.2024 which is beyond the prescribed period of time as per provisions of the Act. 4. The ld. DR relied on the order of the AO and submitted that as per the AO’s order dated 18.12.2024 which is placed at page 226 of the petition, the AO has directed the assessee for payment of 50% of the demand and submitted that the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court cited by the assessee’s counsel is challenged by the Revenue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which is pending for adjudication. 5. Considering the rival submissions, we noted that assessee has filed stay application for stay of the demand of Rs.17,66,24,337. The SP No.7/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 3 AO has rejected the stay petition by observing that assessee has not made payment of 50% of the tax demand. However, he has noted that the assessee has paid 20% of the tax demand of Rs.3,53,24,867, thereby complying the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act. Therefore it is a fit case for grant of stay as per section 254 of the Act. Considering the facts of the case, we grant stay against the balance outstanding demand for a period of 6 months from the date of this order, or till the appeal is disposed, whichever is earlier. The assessee is also directed not to seek unnecessary adjournment for early disposal of the case. In case the assessee seeks adjournment of hearing of the appeal, the stay granted shall be automatically vacated. 6. In the result, the stay petition of the assessee is allowed as above. Pronounced in the open court on this 19th day of March, 2025 as per Rule 34 of ITAT Rules. Sd/- Sd/- ( SOUNDARARAJAN K. ) ( LAXMI PRASAD SAHU ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bangalore, Dated, the 19th March, 2025. /Desai S Murthy / Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Bangalore. "