2018 (5) TMI 1430 - AT - Income Tax

Stay on the disputed demand - disallowance of interest expenditure - due to subsequent amendment made by the state government to the scheme of trifurcation of Maharashtra State Electricity Board, the loan liability corresponding to the impugned disallowance of interest has been taken over by the State Government from the assessee with retrospective effect - thus claim for deduction of interest expenditure while calculating the final taxable income was removed - Held that - since the assessee has made significant payments out of the total outstanding demand - stay on the recovery of outstanding demand shall operate for a period of six months - decided in favor of assessee

Summary

Issues: Stay applications for disputed demand raised for assessment years 2007-08 and 2009-10 due to penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act.

Analysis:
1. The dispute arose from the disallowance of interest expenditure claimed by the assessee, a state government undertaking, related to the unbundling of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board. The original trifurcation scheme allocated all loan liabilities to the assessee, allowing interest expenditure deductions. However, a subsequent government amendment transferred these liabilities retrospectively, making the interest expenditure claim redundant. The Tribunal refrained from ruling on the merit of the disallowance in the quantum appeal due to this change. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was deemed inappropriate by the assessee, especially concerning the interest expenditure disallowance.

2. The assessee argued that the penalty was unjustified, emphasizing the significant payments made towards the outstanding demand. The AO's refusal to stay the recovery of the disputed demand was contested, highlighting the lack of consideration for the penalty's sustainability. The assessee sought a stay on the balance of the demand, stressing the prima facie merit of the case and the payments already made. The Revenue, however, supported the penalty levy, citing the sustained disallowance in the quantum proceedings as justification.

3. The Tribunal acknowledged the need to evaluate the prima facie case to determine the balance of convenience. The retrospective amendment nullified the dispute on interest expenditure, rendering the penalty's validity arguable. Considering the substantial payments made by the assessee, the Tribunal directed the AO not to pursue coercive measures for demand collection. The appeals were scheduled for a regular Bench hearing, taking into account the parties' consent for a specific date.

4. The Tribunal granted a stay on the recovery of the outstanding demand for six months or until the appeal orders were passed, whichever came earlier. The formal notice of hearing was waived due to the announcement in the open court. Ultimately, the stay application of the assessee was allowed, providing temporary relief from the disputed demand recovery.