SANJAY GOPALDAS BAJAJ,MUMBAI V. ITO WARD-12(1)(1), MUMBAI

SA 121/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Sanjay Gopaldas Bajaj, who filed an application seeking a stay on the recovery of an outstanding tax demand for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The demand was Rs.73,49,333, related to a claim of deduction under section 54 of the Income Tax Act, which had been previously allowed for the applicant's wife in a similar case. The Tribunal considered the submissions from both the applicant's counsel and the Departmental Representative, ultimately deciding to grant the stay based on the prima facie merits of the case and the partial payment of the demand.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 779425 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 17-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 09-10-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KRISHNA KUMAR
• Keywords: Application of stay
• Section: 54; 2

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SA No. 121/Mum/2025 (Arising out of ITA No. 5944/Mum/2025) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Sanjay Gopaldas Bajaj 17/702, Indra Darshan, Oshiwara, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 053 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 12(1)(1) Mumbai PAN/GIR No. ADQPB 6965 J (Applicant) : (Respondent) Applicant by : Shri Ruturaj H. Gujrar Respondent by : Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. DR) Date of Hearing : 17.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 17.10.2025 O R D E R The captioned application has been filed by the assessee/applicant seeking stay on recovery of outstanding demand of Rs.73,49,333/-, pertaining to the Assessment Year (A.Y. 2015-16). 2. The ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that while deciding identical claim of deduction u/s. 54 of the Act in case of assessee’s wife, the Assessing Officer (‘A.O.’ for short) himself has allowed the claim. Thus, he submitted, assessee has strong prima facie case. Further, he submitted, assessee has paid more than 20% of the outstanding demand in the meanwhile. Printed from counselvise.com 2 SA No.121/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16) Sanjay Gopaldas Bajaj vs. ITO 3. The ld. Departmental Representative (‘ld. DR’ for short) oppose to grant the stay. 4. Having considered rival submissions and perused the materials available on record, we are convinced that the assessee has made out a prima facie case in his favour. The balance of conveyance is also in favour of assessee. Further, keeping in view the fact that the assessee has paid more than 20% of the demand, we are inclined to grant stay on recovery of balance demand for a period of 180 days from the date of this order or till the disposal of the corresponding appeal, whichever is earlier. With the consent of both the parties, the corresponding appeal is fixed for hearing, on out of turn basis, on 17.11.2025. Paper books, if any, must be filed sufficiently ahead of the date of hearing. 5. In the result, the stay application is allowed as indicated above. Order pronounced in the open court on 17.10.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Vikram Singh Yadav) (Saktijit Dey) Accountant Member Vice President Mumbai; Dated : 17.10.2025 Roshani, Sr. PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT - concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard File BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "