Sri. Suresh Sonnahallipura Narayanaswamy, Bengaluru V. Income Tax Officer Ward - 5 (3) (7), Bengaluru

SA 196/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6040 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 19-07-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Application of stay

Judgement Text

SP.196/BANG/2018 PAGE - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU BENCH 'C', BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI. INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER STAY PETITION NO.196/BANG/2018 (IN I.T.A NO.2062/BANG/2018) (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015-16) SHRI. SURESH SONNAHALLIPURA NARAYANASWAMY, NO.105, 2 ND MAIN MAITHRI EXTENSION, HOPE FARM, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU 560 066 .. APPLICANT PAN : ACDPN6837F V. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -5(3)(7), BENGALURU .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. H. V. GOWTHAMA, CA REVENUE BY : DR. P. V. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADDL. CIT HEARD ON : 27.07.2018 PRONOUNCED ON : 27.07.2018 O R D E R PER LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE PRESENT STAY APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE ASSES SEE SEEKING STAY OF OUTSTANDING DEMAND OF RS.36,97,870/-, FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16. 02. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD ALREADY PAID 25% OF THE TAX DEMAND. HOWEVER THIS WAS DISPUTED B Y THE LD. DR. SP.196/BANG/2018 PAGE - 2 03. ON MERIT IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED THE AMOUNT BY PURCHASING THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, BUT THE AMOUNT WAS NOT BEEN DEPOSITED IN EARMARKED NATIONALISED BANK AS R EQUIRED U/S.54F OF THE ACT. ON THE SAME BASIS, THE AO HAS REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSE HAS SOUGHT TO RELY ON THE JU DGMENT OF THE HONBLE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AND HONBLE JURISDICTIO NAL HIGH COURT TO BUTTRESS HIS SUBMISSION IN THIS REGARD (UNFORTUN ATELY COPY NOT PROVIDED). IT IS ALSO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THA T HE HAD ALREADY PAID 25% OF THE TAX DEMAND. ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THA T HE HAD NO FUNDS AVAILABLE TO PAY THE DEMAND AND HENCE PLEADED FOR STAY OF THE OUTSTANDING DEMAND. 04. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE AO PASSED IN THE MATTER IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH L AW AS THE TIME LIMIT U/S.139(1) OF THE ACT, FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME IS IN PLACE AND FURTHER HE ALSO DISPUTED THE ENTITLEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE U/S.54F OF THE ACT. FURTHER, THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY OPPOSE D THE STAY OF OUTSTANDING DEMAND AND ALSO PLEADED THAT THE ASSESS EE BE DIRECTED TO PAY SOME MORE AMOUNT TOWARDS THE TAX DEMAND, IN THE EVENT OF GRANT OF STAY TO THE ASSESSEE. 05. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAD ALREADY PAID 25% OF THE OUTSTANDING DEMAND AND IS ALSO HAVING A PRIMA FACIE CASE IN HIS FAVOUR, AS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS COVERED IN I TS FAVOUR ON THE BASIS OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT (COPY NOT SUPPLIED). HOWEVER, HE HAD SHOWN HIS WI LLINGNESS TO DEPOSIT MORE AMOUNT TOWARDS THE TAX DEMAND. CONSID ERING THE FACT SP.196/BANG/2018 PAGE - 3 THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND HAD MADE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR GRANT OF STAY, WE THEREFORE, DEEM IT APPRO PRIATE TO DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO PAY FURTHER 5 % OF THE TAX DEMAND IN AD DITION TO 25% ALREADY PAID, SUBJECT TO CONFIRMATION OF THE SAID P AYMENT. THE AMOUNT SHALL BE PAID ON OR BEFORE 15.08.2018. HOWE VER, IF THERE IS ANY DEFICIT IN THE AMOUNT OF 25% CLAIMED TO HAVE AL READY BEEN DEPOSITED, THEN THE ASSESSEE SHALL ALSO MAKE GOOD T HE DEFICIENT AMOUNT ON OR BEFORE 15.08.2018. UNLESS THE AMOUNT IS PAID, THE ASSESSEE SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO ANY REFUND ETC., IN THE 30%. WE GRANT STAY OF RECOVERY OF THE OUTSTANDING DEMAND FO R A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER OR TILL THE DISPO SAL OF THE APPEAL, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER. 06. WE DIRECT THE REGISTRY TO POST THE APPEAL FOR H EARING ON 03.09.2018, IN PLACE OF THE DATE OF HEARING EARLIER GRANTED ON 14.11.2018. NO SEPARATE NOTE OF HEARING NEED BE SE NT TO THE PARTIES AS THE SERVICE OF THIS ORDER ITSELF SUFFICE AS SUFF ICIENT SERVICE OF NOTICE FOR HEARING OF THE APPEAL. THE PARTIES, IF THEY SO DESIRE ARE ADVISED TO FILE PAPER BOOK PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE W ITH THE ITAT RULES WELL IN ADVANCE, AT LEAST 15 DAYS BEFORE THE DATE OF HEARING, AFTER SERVING A COPY OF THE SAME TO THE OTHER PARTY . THE PARTIES ARE ADVISED NOT TO SEEK UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENT WITHOUT THERE BEING BONAFIDE REASONS. IF THE ASSESSEE VIOLATES ANY OF THE CONDITION MENTIONED HEREIN ABOVE, THEN THE STAY GRANTED BY TH E TRIBUNAL SHALL AUTOMATICALLY STAND VACATED. SP.196/BANG/2018 PAGE - 4 07. IN THE RESULT, STAY PETITION IS ALLOWED TO THE ABOVE MENTIONED EXTENT. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH DAY OF JULY, 2018. SD/- SD/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (LALIET KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER BENGALURU DATED : 27.07.2018 MCN* COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) 5. DR 6. GF, ITAT, BANGALORE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.