2020 (2) TMI 1460 - AT - Income Tax

Stay petition - HELD THAT - As stated that the matter came up for hearing on 29.01.2020, on which date the hearing was adjourned sinedie, in response to letter seeking adjournment dated 28.01.2020. Now, the Ld.Counsel stated that since stay has already expired, which was up to 13.01.2020, early hearing be granted and in that eventuality, the assessee will not pursue this stay petition. On query from the Bench, the ld. DR has not objected to the proposal put forth by the Ld.AR. Accordingly, we dismiss the Stay Application and fix the appeal for hearing on 25.02.2020. We also make it clear that the assessee should not seek adjournment on the date of hearing. In case, the Revenue seeks adjournment, the entire amount will be stayed automatically. Since the date of hearing is mentioned in the stay order, the registry may desist from sending notice of hearing to the parties, i.e., this order should also be construed as notice of hearing.

Summary

Issues:
Stay of outstanding demand of ?37,05,16,734 out of total demand of ?46,30,29,450 for Assessment Year 2015-16.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Stay Application for Outstanding Demand:
The assessee filed a stay application seeking relief from the outstanding demand of ?37,05,16,734 out of the total demand of ?46,30,29,450 for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The background of the case involves the assessee being searched by the Revenue under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as part of searches conducted against a group of cases. During the search, the assessee surrendered an amount of ?20,00,00,000 as undeclared income. However, when filing the return of income, the assessee did not declare this surrendered income. The Revenue authorities made additions to the tune of ?20 crores and ?76.19 crores based on various allegations, including infringement of provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The assessee claimed that the surrendered income was made on behalf of a company and not in his individual capacity. Additionally, another addition of ?16.24 crores was made towards treating long-term capital gain as bogus. The assessee argued that the transactions were genuine and that principles of natural justice were not followed by the Revenue during the investigation.

2. Decision on Stay Application:
After detailed discussions and considering the factual matrix of the case, the Tribunal decided to grant early hearing of the appeal. The stay application was dismissed, and the appeal was fixed for hearing on a specific date. The Tribunal clarified that the assessee should not seek adjournment on the date of hearing. If the Revenue seeks adjournment, the entire amount would be automatically stayed. The order pronounced on 14th February 2020 at Chennai concluded the rejection of the stay petition.

3. Procedural Clarifications:
A corrigendum was issued, and subsequent hearings were adjourned. The registry was instructed not to send a notice of hearing to the parties as the date of hearing was mentioned in the stay order. The decision to reject the stay petition was made clear in the order pronounced in the open court.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the stay application while granting early hearing of the appeal, emphasizing that the assessee should not seek adjournment on the hearing date. The decision was based on the detailed discussions and considerations of the factual aspects of the case, including the disputed amounts and the arguments presented by both parties.