SHRI KAMLESH SEN,BHOPAL V. THE CIT (A) NFAC, DELHI

SA 6/IND/2026

AI Insights

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, heard three Stay Applications (SAs) filed by Shri Kamlesh Sen against the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi, concerning different assessment years. The applications were consolidated due to identical facts and issues. The tribunal found that for SA No. 5/Ind/2026, the assessee had made an excess payment compared to the demand, leading to the dismissal of the application. For SA No. 6/Ind/2026 and SA No. 7/Ind/2026, the tribunal noted that the issues were sub judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and there was a proposed set-off of a refund against the demand, leading to the decision to stay the recovery of the outstanding demand.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 846860 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Indore
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 21-02-2026
• Other Referred Cases: Woodland (Aero Club) Private Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: FORREVENUEAGREEDWITH; FORREVENUEISFAIRENOUGHINNOTRAISINGANYOBJECTIONANDLEFT; SHRIANILKAPOOR
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRIASHISH GOYAL; SHRIN.D
• Keywords: Application of stay
• Section: 6

Judgement Text

"Page 1 of 5 आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,इंदौरɊायपीठ,इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER SA No.5 (Arising out of ITA No. 99/Ind/2023) – AY 2019-20 SA No.6 (Arising out of ITA No. 100/Ind/2023) – AY 2020-21 SA No.7 (Arising out of ITA No. 372/Ind/2025) – AY 2021-22 Shri Kamlesh Sen, 55, Saluja Complex, MP Nagar, Bopal बनाम /Vs. NFAC, Delhi (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) PAN: BEJPS5672C Assessee by Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, ARs Revenue by Shri Anil Kapoor, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 27.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 27.03.2026 O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: The captioned three (3) Stay Applications have been filed by assessee. Since the assessee/applicant is same and the facts are identical, we proceed to dispose of by common-order: SA No. 5/Ind/2026 – AY 2019-20: Printed from counselvise.com Shri Kamlesh Sen- SA No. 5 to 7/Ind/2026 Page 2 of 5 2. Ld. AR fairly submitted that the total demand created by department is Rs. 8,97,600/- against which the assessee has already made payment of Rs. 12,56,640/-, hence there is an excess payment of Rs. 3,59,040/- by assessee. Therefore, there is no enforceable outstanding demand payable by assessee and accordingly no stay is required. Ld. DR for revenue agreed with submission of Ld. AR. Being so, this Stay Application is devoid of merit and dismissed. SA No. 6/Ind/2026 – AY 2020-21: 3. Ld. AR at first narrated the facts giving rise to demand. He submitted that the demand has arisen because of disallowance of employees’ contribution to PF/ESI u/s 36(1)(va) made by AO in intimation u/s 143(1) issued to assessee. The assessee’s appeal contesting impugned disallowance is pending before ITAT, Indore. However, the issue taken up by AO is at present pending before Hon’ble Supreme Court in Woodland (Aero Club) Private Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 1532/2026] and the outcome thereof will have a direct bearing on the adjudication of pending appeal of assessee. It is further submitted that the appeal of assessee is not likely to be taken by ITAT for hearing since identical issue is sub judice before Hon’ble Supreme Court. 4. Ld. AR next submitted that the total demand created by department is Rs. 63,96,890/- against which the assessee has already made payment of Rs. 9,01,936/-. Thus, at present there is a shortfall in payment of 20% of demand amounting to Rs. 3,77,442/- [20% of Rs. 63,96,890 = 12,79,378 (-) Printed from counselvise.com Shri Kamlesh Sen- SA No. 5 to 7/Ind/2026 Page 3 of 5 9,01,936]. However, there is a sum of Rs. 15,15,050/- refundable by department to assessee in subsequent AY 2025-26 and the AO has already issued an intimation dated 12.02.2026 to assessee proposing for set off of refund of AY 2025-25 against demand. Therefore, after set off of refund of Rs. 15,15,050/-, there would be no shortfall in payment of 20% of demand. Ld. AR asserted in open court that the assessee will not raise any objection against proposed set off by AO. 5. With these submissions, Ld. AR requested to grant a stay over recovery of balance demand. 6. Ld. DR for revenue is fair enough in not raising any objection and left the matter to the wisdom of bench. 7. After a careful consideration, we find that since the issue giving rise to demand is sub judice before Hon’ble Supreme Court, enforcement of demand at this stage would cause undue hardship to assessee. Further, the assessee has already made part-payment and there is also a refund of AY 2025-26 proposed to be set off against subsisting demand. Thus, the condition of 20% payment of demand stands satisfied. In these circumstances, we find that the balance of convenience lies in favour of assessee. We, therefore, direct the AO not to enforce recovery of the outstanding demand for a period of 180 days from the date of this order or till disposal of assessee’s pending appeal, whichever is earlier, subject to the condition that the assessee shall co-operate in expeditious disposal of appeal Printed from counselvise.com Shri Kamlesh Sen- SA No. 5 to 7/Ind/2026 Page 4 of 5 pending before ITAT, Indore failing which the stay shall be liable for revocation. This Stay Application is allowed in these terms. SA No. 7/Ind/2026 – AY 2021-22: 8. This Stay Application has same facts as the preceding SA No. 6/Ind/2026, the only change is that the total demand created by department is Rs. 69,36,160/- against which the assessee has already made payment of Rs. 13,87,232/- equal to 20% of demand. Thus, the condition of 20% payment is already satisfied. Being so, we adopt the very same reasoning as in preceding para and direct the AO not to enforce recovery of the outstanding demand for a period of 180 days from the date of this order or till disposal of the appeal, whichever is earlier, subject to the condition that the assessee shall co-operate in expeditious disposal of appeal pending before ITAT, Indore failing which the stay shall be liable for revocation. This Stay Application is allowed in these terms. 9. Resultantly, SA No. 5/Ind/2026 is dismissed. SA No. 6 & 7/Ind/2026 are allowed in terms mentioned. Order pronounced in open court on 27/03/2026 immediately after conclusion of hearing and subsequently reduced in writing. Sd/- sd/- (PARESH M. JOSHI) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER िदनांक/Dated : Patel/Sr. PS Printed from counselvise.com Shri Kamlesh Sen- SA No. 5 to 7/Ind/2026 Page 5 of 5 Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPSr.Y Sr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore Printed from counselvise.com "