9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (5) TMI 1538 - AT - Income TaxStay on demand - Held that - Since, very long period has been elaspsed when the first stay was granted vide order dated 13th Feb. 2015, the outstanding demand cannot be kept stayed Therefore, the request of the Ld. Cousel for the assessee for extension of the stay is rejected. However, keeping in view, the facts that substantial amount has been deposited by the assessee. Further no financial stress is pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. We deem it proper to grant installment for payment of the outstanding demands i.e. 10 lakhs per month starting from 1st August, 2017 in the meantime, the Revenue shall not take any coercive steps for recovering of demand.
Issues Involved:
Stay Applications for extension of stay granted for assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14; Constitution of Special Bench pending consideration; Extension of stay beyond 365 days; Payment of substantial amount of tax; Request for installment payment. Analysis: Stay Application No. 06/JP/2017 (Arising out of ITA No. 68/JP/2015): The appellant sought extension of stay due to divergent views on appeal issues and pending constitution of a Special Bench. The appellant cited judgments supporting stay extension beyond 365 days and highlighted substantial tax payments made. The Tribunal noted continuous stay extensions since Feb. 2015 and the appellant's request for a Special Bench. Despite the absence of a constituted Special Bench, the Tribunal rejected further stay extension due to the long duration of the initial stay. However, considering the substantial tax payments and absence of financial stress, the Tribunal granted an installment plan for outstanding demands, directing the Revenue not to take coercive recovery steps. Stay Application No. 07/JP/2017 (Arising out of ITA No. 69/JP/2015): Both parties presented similar arguments as in the previous application, with identical facts. The Tribunal decided this appeal in line with the decision made in Stay Application No. 06/JP/2017. In conclusion, both stay applications were disposed of, with the Tribunal granting an installment plan for outstanding demands in one case and deciding the other application based on the first application's outcome. The judgment was pronounced on 30/5/2017.
|
