XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KARNATAKA, BENGALURU V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

SA 71/BANG/2024

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd., which filed two stay applications seeking an extension of a previously granted stay on tax demands for the assessment years 2020-21 and 2021-22. The original stay was granted due to substantial attachments on the company's bank accounts and ongoing legal disputes concerning the DIN issue. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both the assessee and the revenue, noting the lack of progress in the related legal matters and the unchanged circumstances since the original stay was granted. The Tribunal decided to extend the stay for an additional 180 days, emphasizing the protection of the revenue's interest while allowing for the ongoing legal processes to unfold.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 37688 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 26-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V. PARITHIVEL
• Assessee Lawyers: A. SHANKAR; HARPREET SINGH AJMANI
• Keywords: Application of stay; Extension of stay
• Section: 234B

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER S.A. Nos. 70 & 71/Bang/2024 (Arising out of IT(TP)A Nos. 1041 & 1042/Bang/2024) Assessment Years : 2020-21 & 2021-22 M/s. Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd. Orchid, (Block E), Ground Floor, Embassy Tech Village, Marathalli Outer Ring Road, Bellandur S.O., Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore – 560 103. PAN: AAACX1645B Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri A. Shankar, Sr. Advocate & Shri Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Advocate Revenue by : Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT – DR Date of Hearing : 06-12-2024 Date of Pronouncement : 26-12-2024 ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER These are the two stay applications filed by the assessee for extension of stay which was already granted by the Tribunal in S.P. Nos. 25 & 26/Bang/2024 vide orders dated 06/06/2024. 2. The assessment years involved in these stay applications are 2020-21 and 2021-22. Originally the assessee filed two stay applications in S.P. Nos. Page 2 of 4 S.A. Nos. 70 & 71/Bang/2024 (in IT(TP)A Nos. 1041 & 1042/Bang/2024) 25 & 26/Bang/2024 (in IT(TP)A Nos. 1041 & 1042/Bang/2024) seeking for the stay of demand of Rs. 19,95,68,06,291/- and Rs. 17,36,59,96,491/- respectively which includes the interest u/s. 234B and C of the Act. 3. Since the entire facts leading to the additions made on the hands of the assessee were extracted in the order dated 06/06/2024, we are not again repeating the facts. The Tribunal in its earlier order had dealt with the issue in detail and also considering the fact that the Income Tax Department had made an attachment on the two FD’s of the assessee which comes about Rs. 3,700 crores, and the subsequent seizure made by the Enforcement Directorate under the FEMA, the Tribunal was of the view that there is no further requirement of any payment or furnishing any securities. The Tribunal further ordered that in the event of the attachment has been vacated or revoked or disturbed or modified by any of the Courts or authorities, the Tribunal directed the assessee to pay 20% of the demands or furnish security amounting to not less than 20% of the outstanding liability within two weeks from the date of such removal or vacating or revoking or modifying the attachments of the bank accounts. 4. The Tribunal further directed the assessee to fully co-operate in the speedy disposal of the appeal. In para 25 of the said stay order, the Tribunal had granted the stay order for 180 days from the date of the order or till the disposal of the related appeal or till further orders of this Tribunal whichever is earlier. 5. At the time of argument, the Ld.Sr. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that there is no change in the circumstances and the appeal is also listed for hearing on 28/01/2025. The Ld.Sr. Counsel further submitted that in this matter, the DIN issue was also involved which is pending before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in which the Additional Solicitor General is Page 3 of 4 S.A. Nos. 70 & 71/Bang/2024 (in IT(TP)A Nos. 1041 & 1042/Bang/2024) appearing on behalf of the revenue. The Ld.Sr.Counsel submitted that the department is only seeking adjournment in the appeal by citing the above reason. The Ld.Sr.Counsel further submitted that since the 180 days period is expiring, the stay order already granted may be extended for a further period of 180 days. 6. The Ld.DR submitted and accepted that the bank accounts of the assessee viz., HSBC Bank, Citi Bank were attached on 18/02/2022 and thereafter there is no progress and also in view of the involvement of DIN issue, they are taking time to complete the appeal. 7. We have heard the arguments of both sides and considered the documents filed along with the stay extension petition. It is not in dispute that the assessee’s bank account in HSBC Bank and Citi Bank were attached on 18/02/2022 by the DDIT (Investigation), Unit-1(1), Bangalore by passing orders under section 132(9B) of the Act. As seen from the records, the total amounts attached by the department is Rs. 3,700 crores (Rs. 2,600 crores with HSBC Bank and Rs. 1,100 crores with Citi Bank). There is also no documents submitted by the revenue that the attachments were lifted or modified and therefore we are of the view that there is no change in circumstances, as submitted by the Ld. Sr Counsel. The Department also seeking adjournment for the appeals on the ground that the DIN issue was also involved in both the appeals which is pending for consideration before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 8. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the interest of the revenue is protected and also the appeals could not be decided on merits as expeditiously as possible because of the DIN issue. We are therefore of the considered view that the stay already granted in S.P. Nos. 25 & 26/Bang/2024 (in IT(TP)A Nos. 1041 & 1042/Bang/2024) dated Page 4 of 4 S.A. Nos. 70 & 71/Bang/2024 (in IT(TP)A Nos. 1041 & 1042/Bang/2024) 06/06/2024 is to be extended for a further period of 180 days. We also make it clear that if there is any change in circumstances, both the assessee as well as the revenue is at liberty to bring it to the notice of the Tribunal so that the necessary orders can be passed on that basis. 9. In the result, both the stay extension applications filed by the assessee are allowed on the above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 26th December, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (SOUNDARARAJAN K.) Vice – President Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 26th December, 2024. /MS / Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 5. Guard file 6. CIT(A) By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore "