9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 1460 - AT - Income TaxStay on the recovery of the outstanding demand - outstanding refund adjustment against the outstanding demand - HELD THAT - A substantial amount had already been recovered by the revenue as against its original outstanding demand for the year under consideration - we find that the delay in the disposal of the present appeal cannot be attributed to any default or lapse on the part of the assessee. Assessee had duly complied with the directions of the Tribunal and a substantial part of the total demand had already been deposited in the government exchequer, therefore, the application filed by the assessee seeking extension of the stay on the recovery of the outstanding demand merits acceptance. Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Tata Tele Services (Maharashtra) Ltd. 2015 (12) TMI 1507 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , held that if the delay in disposing off the appeal is not attributable to the assessee, then the stay can be extended beyond the prescribed time limit provided under the statute. We are unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the objection of the ld. D.R to the grant of extension of the stay on the recovery of the outstanding demand of the assessee. Accordingly, in terms of our aforesaid observations, in the fitness of things the stay on the recovery of the outstanding demand is extended for a further period of six months or till the disposal of the appeal, whichever is earlier - Stay application filed by the assessee is allowed.
Issues:
Extension of stay on recovery of outstanding demand for A.Y. 2010-11. Analysis: Issue 1: Extension of Stay on Recovery of Outstanding Demand The assessee filed an application seeking an extension of the stay on the recovery of the outstanding demand of ?71,12,41,378 for the assessment year 2010-11. The Tribunal had initially granted a stay on the recovery of the outstanding demand, and subsequently extended it from time to time. The Tribunal's last order extended the stay for a period of 6 months or till the date of the Tribunal's order, whichever was earlier. The authorized representative for the assessee argued that no default or lapses could be attributed to the assessee for the delay in the appeal's disposal. It was emphasized that a substantial amount had already been deposited by the assessee, and the appeal was fixed for a hearing. The Departmental Representative objected to the extension of the stay. Issue 2: Tribunal's Consideration The Tribunal considered the submissions from both parties and reviewed the records. It noted that a significant refund due to the assessee for the assessment year 2007-08 had been adjusted against the outstanding demand for the assessment year 2010-11. Consequently, the balance outstanding demand was reduced to ?71,12,41,378. The Tribunal observed that a substantial amount had already been recovered by the revenue, and the delay in appeal disposal was not due to any fault of the assessee. Referring to a relevant case law, the Tribunal highlighted that if the delay in disposing of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee, the stay can be extended beyond the prescribed time limit. The Tribunal disagreed with the Departmental Representative's objection and granted the extension of the stay on the recovery of the outstanding demand for a further period of six months or until the disposal of the appeal, whichever was earlier. Conclusion The Tribunal allowed the stay application filed by the assessee based on the considerations that a substantial part of the total demand had been deposited, the delay in appeal disposal was not the assessee's fault, and in line with the legal precedent cited. The stay on the recovery of the outstanding demand was extended as per the Tribunal's observations.
|
