Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2015 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (4) TMI 878 - HC - Income TaxInterim stay application - Held that - It has been held by the Tribunal that the assessee was still in the process of constructing the building for charitable purpose. That he claimed that the order of the Assessing Officer treating the corpus donation as the income of the assessee was not justified. In these circumstances, the Tribunal was proceeded to grant a conditional stay order. The assessee has been directed to deposit a further sum of ₹ 30lacs on or before 15.3.2015 and in case the compliance is made, further recovery of ₹ 2,97,68,450/- is to shall remain stayed for a period of six months or till the appeal is finally decided, whichever, is earlier. No substantial question.
Issues: Application for stay of demand before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Agra, Bench in S.A. No.01/Agra/2012 for assessment year 2011-12.
In the judgment delivered by the High Court, the appellant had made an application for stay before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Agra, Bench in S.A. No.01/Agra/2012, arising from the order of the C.I.T. (A), related to the assessment year 2011-12. The appellant requested a complete stay of the demand amounting to Rs. 3,27,68,450, having already deposited Rs. 30 lacs earlier. The Tribunal observed that the assessee was still in the process of constructing a building for charitable purposes and disputed the Assessing Officer's treatment of corpus donation as the assessee's income. The department argued that the assessee failed to submit the audit report and prove the trust's genuineness. Consequently, the Tribunal granted a conditional stay order, directing the assessee to deposit an additional Rs. 30 lacs by a specified date. If compliance was met, recovery of Rs. 2,97,68,450 was to remain stayed for six months or until the appeal's final decision, whichever was earlier. The High Court, after considering the facts, concluded that no question of law arose in the appeal challenging the Tribunal's order and dismissed the appeal accordingly.
|