2015 (10) TMI 237 - AT - Income Tax

Stay of demand - object of the assessee is to provide affordable accommodation/tenements as well as other services of infrastructure to the targeted category of peoples who could not afford the accommodation at the market price - Held that - Subsequent to the grant of stay vide order dated 28.03.2014, the appeal of the assessee could not be heard due to the reasons recorded in the order-sheet of the appeal file. We have perused the order-sheet of the appeal file, and find that delay in hearing and disposal of appeal is not attributable to the assessee. Acordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we extend the stay against balance outstanding demand for a period of 180 days or till disposal of appeal which ever is earlier. We make it clear that the stay granted/extended by us shall stand vacated if the assessee seeks unnecessary adjournment of hearing of the appeal.

Summary

Issues involved:
Stay extension of outstanding demand of Rs. 159,84,07,717 granted by Tribunal.

Analysis:
The Tribunal granted stay against the balance demand for 180 days or till the disposal of appeal, considering the nature of the assessee's activities and the amount already paid. The Tribunal found that the assessee's objective was to provide affordable accommodation and infrastructure services to those unable to afford market prices. The Tribunal referred to a case where a statutory authority was considered charitable and discussed the importance of registration under Section 12A for claiming exemptions. The Tribunal highlighted that if the primary purpose of an institution is charitable, any other non-charitable object incidental to the dominant purpose would not prevent it from being a valid charity. The Tribunal also referred to a CBDT circular clarifying that relief of the poor includes a wide range of welfare activities, even if incidental commercial activities are carried out, subject to certain conditions. The Tribunal found that the assessee had made a prima facie good case that its activities were not in the nature of trade, commerce, or business, and had already paid a significant amount of the outstanding demand. Therefore, the Tribunal extended the stay against the balance demand for 180 days or till the disposal of the appeal.

The Tribunal extended the stay against the outstanding demand for a further 180 days or till the disposal of the appeal, as the delay in hearing was not due to the assessee. The Tribunal clarified that unnecessary adjournments by the assessee would lead to the vacation of the stay granted. The decision to extend the stay was made in the interest of justice and based on the facts and circumstances of the case, ensuring that the delay in the appeal process did not negatively impact the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that the extension of the stay was subject to the hearing and disposal of the appeal within the specified time frame, maintaining fairness and efficiency in the legal proceedings.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's stay application, extending the stay against the outstanding demand for a specified period. The decision was based on the assessee's prima facie case regarding the nature of its activities, the amount already paid, and the delay in the appeal process not attributable to the assessee. The Tribunal's order aimed to balance the interests of the parties involved while ensuring the fair and efficient resolution of the appeal.