VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

SA 8/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Vijay Tukaram Raundal, who filed stay applications against the penalty demands for the assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16, which were levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalties were affirmed by the CIT(A) following the Assessing Officer's decision. The primary contention in the stay applications was the assessee's claim of having a prima facie good case, supported by new evidence obtained through an RTI application, which allegedly proved the genuineness of a crucial project completion letter. The Department opposed the stay, arguing against the prima facie case presented by the assessee. The Tribunal considered the payments already made by the assessee and the circumstances surrounding the case, including the ongoing appeal at the High Court regarding the quantum addition for denial of deduction under section 80IB(10).

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 37810 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 14-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Next Hearing Date: 14-11-2024
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 05-09-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARVIND DESAI
• Keywords: Application of stay

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER S.A. Nos 07 to 09/PUN/2024 (Arising out of ITA Nos.1634 to 1636/PUN/2024) \u0001नधा\u0005रण वष\u0005 / Assessment Years : 2013-14 to 2015-16 Vijay Tukaram Raundal, Teerth Technospace,708, C-Wing, Beside Mercedes Benz Showroom, Baner Road, Baner,Pune 411 045 PAN : AAQPR0124G Vs. DCIT, Central Cicle-1(2), Pune (Applicant) (Respondent) आदेश / ORDER PER DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : By means of the present stay applications filed for the assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16, the assessee has approached this Tribunal for granting stay of outstanding demand raised on account of penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act till the disposal of the captioned appeals filed by the assessee before this Tribunal challenging the finding of ld.CIT(A) Applicant by Shri Mihir Naniwadekar Respondent by Shri Arvind Desai Date of hearing 14.11.2024 Date of pronouncement 14.11.2024 SA Nos.07 to 09/PUN/2024 Vijay Tukaram Raundal 2 affirming the action of the AO levying penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that against the quantum addition made for denial of deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act, the assessee has lost before this Tribunal and the assessee has already filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and waiting for admission of the appeal. He submitted that major portion of the tax demand in the instant three assessment years have been paid and some portion towards penalty has also been taken up by the Department from the seized bank accounts. He submitted that one of the reason for which the assessee lost before this Tribunal was the inability of the assessee to prove the genuineness of the letter dated 07.03.2012 given by the assessee to the Municipal Authority informing about the completion of the project. He further submitted that at the later stage the assessee through an RTI application has received the certified copy of the letter dated 07.03.2012 and therefore, he stated that the genuineness of the letter is proved. He therefore submitted that the assessee has a SA Nos.07 to 09/PUN/2024 Vijay Tukaram Raundal 3 prima facie good case in his favour and therefore, stay may be granted. 3. On the other hand, the ld. DR opposed the stay applications by making submissions against the prima facie of the case as made out by the ld. AR and demanded for payment of the outstanding demand. 4. We have heard the parties and perused the relevant material on record. We observe that the assessee has prayed for stay of the outstanding demand towards penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for the A.Yrs. 2013-14 to 2015-16. It is also stated that major portion of the outstanding tax demand has also been deposited by the assessee and that the assessee has agreed to pay the outstanding tax demand also. Considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the instant case, we are inclined to grant stay for a period of three months from today or till the disposal of the appeals, whichever event happens earlier, subject to the following : (1) Assessee is directed to deposit Rs.75 lacs towards penalty for each of the three assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16 on or before 15.12.2024. SA Nos.07 to 09/PUN/2024 Vijay Tukaram Raundal 4 (2) Assessee is also directed to deposit the balance outstanding tax liability for the assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16 on or before 15.12.2024. (3) Further, in case if the Department has taken out the amount from the assessee’s seized bank accounts towards the outstanding demand other than the demand already paid by the asseseee towards tax liability, the same is allowed to be adjusted against the amount to be deposited towards the outstanding penalty amount. 5. However, the above accommodation is subject to the furnishing of an undertaking by the assessee to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer that he will not alienate the immovable properties (details of which is mentioned in the stay applications) till the final disposal of the instant appeals. We also direct the Revenue authorities to immediately release the bank accounts of the assessee so that the assessee can pay the outstanding demand and also carry out on the regular business activity. The assessee is directed not to seek adjournment without a just cause. In case any of the terms and conditions is/are violated, the stay herein granted shall be vacated and appeal will revert to its original position to be fixed in routine manner. With these observations, SA Nos.07 to 09/PUN/2024 Vijay Tukaram Raundal 5 and subject to the above terms and conditions, the stay applications of the assessee gets disposed of accordingly. 6. In the result, the stay applications are allowed in the above terms. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 14th November, 2024 Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे Pune; \u0010दनांक Dated : 14th November, 2024 Satish आदेश क\u0006 \u0007\bत ल\fप अ\u000fे\fषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ\u0017 / The Appellant; 2. \u0018\u0019यथ\u0017 / The Respondent; 3. आयकर आयु\u0006 / The Pr.CIT concerned 4. िवभागीय \rितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे “B” / DR ‘B’, ITAT, Pune; 5. गाड\u0017 फाईल / Guard file. // True copy // आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune "