9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 366 - AT - Income TaxGrant of ad-interim stay of outstanding demand - assessee contended that demand deserves to be stayed as additions are not sustainable on the strength of earlier years order - coercive measures in the shape of auctioning assets of the assessee for recovery of outstanding demand - adjustment of refund with demand - HELD THAT - Revenue intend to adjust the refund of earlier years or subsequent years. Considering the above situation, we do not see any urgency of passing any order staying the outstanding demand at this stage, because, the application of the assessee for grant of stay is pending before the Pr.CIT. It is for the ld.Pr.CIT to look into circular of the CBDT cited by the ld.counsel for the assessee, which is pending with the Revenue and other circumstances. At this stage, we do not deem it necessary to exercise our discretion in view of the above discussion and stay petition is dismissed. The assessee will be at liberty to file fresh application after disposal of its application by Pr.CIT. No merit in the alternative contentions of the assessee for protecting it from the recovery of the demand till the disposal of the application by Pr.CIT by 10 days thereafter, because, the ld.CIT-DR was categorically stated that except adjusting the refund, Revenue is not going to take any other steps. The assessee has agreed in the past of such conditional order. Therefore, this stay petition is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Ad-interim stay of outstanding tax demand. 2. Prima facie case on merit. 3. Irreparable loss and balance of convenience. 4. Adjustment of refunds against outstanding demand. 5. Financial hardship and alternative contention for stay. Detailed Analysis: 1. Ad-interim Stay of Outstanding Tax Demand: The assessee sought an ad-interim stay of the outstanding tax demand amounting to ?1443.37 crores. The application was filed after the assessee had already paid ?560.57 crores out of the total demand of ?2004.94 crores, including interest. 2. Prima Facie Case on Merit: The assessee argued that the demand was not sustainable based on previous rulings in their favor. They provided a detailed note demonstrating how certain additions made by the AO were not sustainable, citing decisions of the ITAT and other appellate authorities. For instance, the Transfer Pricing upward adjustment of ?1035.06 crores and disallowance under section 14A were covered by previous ITAT decisions for earlier assessment years. 3. Irreparable Loss and Balance of Convenience: The assessee contended that the outstanding demand should be stayed due to financial hardship and suffering losses. They argued that recovery of the demand would cause irreparable loss, which could not be compensated in terms of money. They also cited CBDT instructions and various judicial decisions to support their claim for a stay. 4. Adjustment of Refunds Against Outstanding Demand: The Revenue had proposed to adjust refunds from subsequent years against the outstanding demand. The assessee had previously agreed to such conditional orders, and the CIT-DR confirmed that the Revenue would not take any coercive measures like auctioning assets but would adjust refunds. The Tribunal noted that the Pr.CIT had already passed an order extending the stay of the outstanding demand with the condition of adjusting refunds. 5. Financial Hardship and Alternative Contention for Stay: The assessee submitted that they were facing financial hardship and were ready to pay an additional ?50 to ?70 crores if the stay was granted. Alternatively, they requested that the stay be granted during the pendency of the application before the Pr.CIT and for 10 days thereafter to enable them to approach the Tribunal. Conclusion: The Tribunal, after considering the facts and circumstances, dismissed the stay petition. It held that there was no urgency to pass an order staying the outstanding demand since the Revenue was not adopting coercive measures and was only adjusting refunds. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had agreed to such conditional orders in the past and had not shown any grievance with the condition of adjusting refunds. The assessee was given the liberty to file a fresh application after the disposal of its application by the Pr.CIT.
|
