VIRINCHI LIMITED,HYDERABAD V. DCIT., CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD

SA 15/HYD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Virinchi Ltd, which sought an extension of stay against the recovery of an outstanding tax demand. Initially, the Tribunal had granted a stay subject to the payment of 20% of the demand, which the assessee complied with. However, the appeal could not be heard within the original stay period due to a related issue pending before the Supreme Court. The assessee requested an extension of the stay, arguing that the delay was not their fault. The Departmental Representative did not dispute the delay's non-attributability to the assessee but opposed the extension of the stay. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances, granted the extension.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 315910 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 16-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. M/S ROCA BATHROOM PRODUCTS PVT LTD
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P MURALI MOHAN RAO
• Keywords: Application of stay; Extension of stay
• Section: 15

Judgement Text

" SA No 15 of 20256 Virinchi Ltd Page 1 of 3 आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ DB-A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-President A N D Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Member S.A. No.15/Hyd/2025 आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.1185/Hyd/2024 (िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/s. Virinchi Ltd Hyderabad PAN:AAACV6672N Vs. Dy.CIT Circle 8(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधाŊįरती Ȫारा/Assessee by: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CA राज̾ व Ȫारा/Revenue by:: Shri T Sunil Gowtham, DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 16/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/05/2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President By way of this stay application, the assessee is seeking extension of stay against the recovery of outstanding demand granted by this Tribunal vide order dated 7/02/2025 subject to payment of 20% of the total outstanding demand. 2. The learned AR has referred to the challan dated 27/02/2025 whereby the assessee paid Rs.40.00 lakh to make SA No 15 of 20256 Virinchi Ltd Page 2 of 3 the payment equivalent to 20% of the total outstanding demand. The hearing of the appeal after granting the stay for 90 days could not go through because of the reason that one of the issue involved in the assessee’s appeal is validity of the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is barred by limitation and an identical issue is pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. M/S ROCA BATHROOM PRODUCTS PVT LTD. Thus, the learned AR has pleaded that the delay in disposal of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee and hence, the stay against the recovery of the demand already granted by this Tribunal vide order dated 7/2/2025 expired on 8/5/2025 be extended for a further period of 180 days. 3. On the other hand, the learned DR has not disputed the fact that the delay in disposal of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee. However, he has objected to the extension of stay against the recovery. 4. Having considered the rival submission as well as perusal of the relevant record, we find that vide order dated 7/2/2025 this Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer not to take any coercive action for recovery of the outstanding demand for a period of 90 days subject to the payment of 20% of the outstanding demand. The assessee has already paid an amount of Rs.40.00 lakhs to make up the total payment against the demand equivalent to 20%. The said stay granted by the Tribunal for 90 SA No 15 of 20256 Virinchi Ltd Page 3 of 3 days has expired on 08/05/2025 but the appeal of the assessee could not be heard due to the reason that the issue involved in the appeal is also pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. M/S ROCA BATHROOM PRODUCTS PVT LTD. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we find it a fit case for extension of the stay against the demand for a further period of 90 days. The Assessing Officer is directed not to take any coercive action for recovery of the balance outstanding demand for a period of 90 days. 5. In the result, stay application filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on the conclusion of hearing i.e. on 16th May, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MANJUNATHA, G.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (VIJAY PAL RAO) VICE-PRESIDENT Hyderabad, dated 16th May, 2025 Vinodan/sps Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Virinchi Ltd c/o P Murali & Co. CAs, 6-3-655/2/3 Somajiguda, Hyderabad 500082 2 Dy.CIT Circle 8(1) Hyderabad 3 Pr. CIT - Hyderabad 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order "