VOLVO GROUP INDIA PVT. LTD,BENGALURU V. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU

SA 24/BANG/2025

AI Insights

Volvo Group India Pvt. Ltd. filed stay applications for the assessment years 2010-11 to 2013-14, seeking an extension of a previously granted stay on the recovery of outstanding tax demands. The Tribunal had earlier granted a stay for 180 days, which was set to expire. The assessee argued for the continuation of the stay, citing the significant payment already made towards the demand and the delay in the disposal of the appeal, which was not attributable to them. The Revenue did not contest these arguments. The Tribunal considered the circumstances and decided to extend the stay, emphasizing the need for the assessee to avoid unnecessary adjournments in future hearings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 41304 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 14-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARITHIVEL V
• Assessee Lawyers: NEERAJ K JAIN; WAY OF THESE STAY APPLICATIONS DIFFERENT
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Application of stay

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SA Nos.20-24/Bang/2025 Assessment Year: 2010-11-2013-14 Volvo Group India Pvt. Ltd., [Formerly known as Volvo India Pvt. Ltd] 65/2, Bagmane Tech Park, Block – A, 5th Floor, Parin Building, C.V Raman Nagar, Bangalore – 560 093. PAN – AAACV 6747 N Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Neeraj K Jain, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Parithivel V, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 14.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 14.03.2025 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The assessee by way of these stay applications for different assessment years prays for the extension of the stay order which was previously granted vide order dated 02-09-2024 for the stay on the recovery of outstanding demand in SA Nos. 38-42/Bang/2024 for 180 days. The necessary details of the outstanding demand stand as under: SA Nos.20-24/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 4 . 2. This Tribunal, by an order dated 2-09-2024, was pleased to grant the stay on the recovery of outstanding demand for captioned assessment year. The order of stay was granted for 180 days or till disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal, whichever is earlier. 3. The ld. AR before us submitted that this Tribunal has already found the existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and relative hardship and has thought it fit to grant an order of stay. Accordingly, the ld. AR claimed that the same should be continued in the interest of justice. 3.1 The ld. AR has also submitted that the assessee has already paid the significant amount of demand involved in the appeals which constitutes more than 20% of the outstanding demand. The ld. AR also claimed that the delay in not disposing of the appeal by the Tribunal is not attributable on the part of the Assessee. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. DR before us could not controvert the arguments advanced by the ld. AR of the assessee. SA Nos.20-24/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 4 . 5. We have given very careful consideration to the rival submissions. We are of the view that the existence of all conditions for the grant of stay has already been considered by this Tribunal and at this stage new conditions cannot be imposed. All the relevant parameters for the stay of recovery of outstanding demand have already been tested by the Tribunal when it originally granted an order of stay on an earlier occasion. Moreover, the stay order passed by the Tribunal was not challenged by the Revenue. It is worth noting that the assessee has already paid more than 20% of the outstanding demand specifies above as evident from the details available on record. 5.1 It is also pertinent to note that the case for hearing has already been adjourned sine-die owing to pending MAP Proceedings. Accordingly, there is no need to give a fresh date of the hearing. However, we make it clear that whenever these appeals are going to be listed for hearing, the assessee shall not seek any adjournment on the date of the hearing without there being a reasonable cause, otherwise the bench hearing the case shall be its liberty to revoke the stay order. 5.2 For the reasons given above, we direct that there shall be an order of stay on the recovery of outstanding demand for 6 months or till the disposal of the appeal whichever is earlier. All the fresh stay petitions filed by the assessee are accordingly allowed. 6. In the result, all the Stay Applications filed by assessee are allowed in terms of above. Order pronounced in court on 14th day of March, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (KESHAV DUBEY) (WASEEM AHMED) Judicial Member Accountant Member Bangalore Dated, 14th March, 2025 / vms / SA Nos.20-24/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 4 . Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore "