2019 (1) TMI 214 - AT - Income Tax

Stay of demand - recovery proceedings - Held that - If entire demand is recovered against the assessee, the purpose of the filing of the appeal would be frustrated. The interest of Revenue is also protected because the assessee has already paid substantial demand to the Revenue against the outstanding demand. The appeal of assessee is pending for disposal and appeals of assessee for another years on the same issue are also pending for disposal. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we stay the entire outstanding demand for a period of six months or disposal of the appeal whichever may expires earlier, subject to the condition that assessee shall not seek unnecessary adjournment in the matter. The Office is directed to fix the appeal of assessee for final hearing on 14.01.2019 the day when other appeals of the assessee on the same issue are fixed for final hearing.

Summary

Issues:
Stay application against outstanding demand of ?111,61,79,720/- for A.Y. 2015-2016.

Analysis:
The assessee filed a stay application against the demand of ?111,61,79,720/- for A.Y. 2015-2016. The issue revolved around the taxability of an amount of ?246.84 crores received as option money. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) treated this amount as taxable business income, leading to the addition of ?247.39 crores to the assessee's income. The assessee contended that the option money was a capital receipt linked to a joint venture agreement with another party and should not be taxed as business income. The assessee had previously explained this in assessments for A.Ys. 2005-2006 to 2014-2015, where the A.O. accepted the explanation. However, for A.Y. 2015-2016, the A.O. changed the treatment, resulting in the current demand. The assessee argued that the demand was unjustified as the option money was capital in nature and part of the sale consideration at the time of exit.

In considering the stay application, the Tribunal evaluated the prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable loss, and the interest of revenue. The Tribunal noted that the issue had been examined in earlier years without adverse views against the assessee. Although the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax had reopened assessments for A.Ys. 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 under section 263 of the I.T. Act, the assessee's appeals were pending. The Tribunal found that the assessee had a prima facie case for a stay as substantial demand had already been paid. Granting the stay would prevent frustration of the appeal process, and the revenue's interest was safeguarded as the assessee had paid a significant amount. The Tribunal stayed the entire outstanding demand for six months or until disposal of the appeal, directing the assessee not to seek unnecessary adjournments. The appeal was scheduled for final hearing alongside other appeals on the same issue.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the stay application, emphasizing that the order did not express an opinion on the case's merits. The decision aimed to maintain the status quo until the appeal's resolution, ensuring fairness and procedural continuity.