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

SA 24/HYD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Virinchi Limited, which filed a stay application against the collection of an outstanding demand related to the assessment year 2021-2022. The Tribunal had previously granted a stay for 90 days, which expired, and the assessee sought an extension citing the delay in the appeal's hearing due to a related issue pending before the Supreme Court. The Revenue did not dispute the delay's attribution but objected to the stay's extension. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments and granted the extension.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 716840 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 22-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Appeal Filed On: 12-08-2025
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. M/S ROCA BATHROOM PRODUCTS PVT LTD
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BOSU BABU ALLI
• Assessee Lawyers: M V JOSHI
• Keywords: Application of stay; Extension of stay

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER Stay Application No.24/Hyd./2025 Arising out of ITA.No.1185/Hyd./2024 - Assessment Year 2021-2022 M/s. Virinchi Limited, Hyderabad. PAN AAACV6672N vs. The DCIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad. (Applicant) (Respondent) For Assessee : CA, M V Joshi For Revenue : Sri Bosu Babu Alli, Sr. AR Date of Hearing : 22.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 22.08.2025 ORDER PER MANJUNATHA, G. By this stay application, the assessee seeks to stay of collection of outstanding demand granted by this Tribunal vide order dated 16.05.2025 wherein the Tribunal granted stay for collection of outstanding demand for a period of 90 days since the assessee has already paid an amount of Rs.40 lakhs to make-up the total payment against the demand equivalent to 20%. Printed from counselvise.com 2 SA.No.24/Hyd./2025 2. CA, M.V. Joshi, Advocate-Learned Counsel for the Assessee referring to the challan dated 27.02.2025 whereby the assessee has paid Rs.40 lakhs to make the payment equivalent to 20% of the total outstanding demand submitted that, 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 16.05.2025 expired on 14.08.2025 be extended for a further period of 90 days. He submitted that, the appeal of the assessee was already part-heard and coming-up for hearing on 25.08.2025. He, therefore, pleaded that, stay of outstanding demand for a period of 90 days be granted or till the Printed from counselvise.com 3 SA.No.24/Hyd./2025 disposal of the appeal, whichever is earlier, in the interest of justice, as the assessee has already paid 20% of outstanding demand. 3. Sri Bose Babu Alli, Sr. AR for the Revenue, on the other hand, 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. We have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and the earlier stay orders of the Tribunal. We find that, there is a force in the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee to the effect that, the delay in disposal of the appeal cannot be attributable to the assessee and further, the assessee has already paid 20% of outstanding demand and as such, stay of outstanding demand be granted in favour of the assessee for a period of 90 days. We find that, the appeal of the assessee was part- heard and coming-up for hearing on 25.08.2025. In view of these facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that, it is a fit case for extension of stay against the Printed from counselvise.com 4 SA.No.24/Hyd./2025 outstanding demand for a period of 90 days or till the disposal of the appeal, whichever is earlier. Accordingly, the stay application of the assessee is allowed. 5. In the result, stay application of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 22.08.2025. Sd/- Sd/- [RAVISH SOOD] [MANJUNATHA G] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated 22nd August, 2025 VBP Copy to 1. M/s. Virinchi Limited, Hyderabad. C/o. P. Murali & Co. Chartered Accountants, 6-3-655/1/3, Somajiguda, Hyderabad - 500 082. 2. The DCIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad. 3. The Pr. CIT, Hyderabad. 4. The DR ITAT “A” Bench, Hyderabad. 5. Guard File. //By Order// //True Copy// Printed from counselvise.com "