2020 (2) TMI 950 - HC - Income Tax

Stay petition - whether the Tribunal is right in dismissing the stay petition ? - HELD THAT - Though the Tribunal found that there is no prima facie case in view of the incriminating documents, considering the fact that the appellant had already deposited a sum of ₹ 15,71,293/-, out of demand of ₹ 61,99,012/-, the Interest of Justice will be complied with by directing the appellant to deposit a further sum of ₹ 15,00,000/- in three equal installments, each installments should be paid within 15 days of every month. On such payment, the dismissal order passed by the Tribunal in the stay petition is set aside and there shall be an order of interim stay till the disposal of the Appeal before the Tribunal. The question of law is answered in the above terms. It is open to the Tribunal to get along with the matter and dispose of the matter at the earliest, in accordance with law.

Issues:
1. Dismissal of stay petition by the assessee/appellant in the ITA.
2. Claim for exemption u/s.10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Disallowance of claim by the Assessment Officer and confirmation by the Appellate Commissioner.
4. Tribunal's finding of no prima facie case in favor of the appellant based on incriminating materials.
5. Admittance of Tax Case Appeal on substantial questions of law.
6. Consideration of complete facts and circumstances by the Tribunal in dismissing the request for stay of demand.
7. Assessment order being without jurisdiction and violation of principles of natural justice.
8. Granting stay of balance tax demand in the interest of justice, equity, and fairness.
9. Payment of tax demanded and interest by the appellant.
10. Direction to deposit a further sum in installments for interim stay till the disposal of the Appeal before the Tribunal.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to the dismissal of a stay petition by the appellant in an Income Tax Appeal against the addition made by the Assessment Officer and confirmed by the Appellate Commissioner. The appellant claimed exemption u/s.10(38) of the Income Tax Act, stating that shares were purchased in 2004 and sold in 2010. The Tribunal found no prima facie case in favor of the appellant based on incriminating materials from SEBI and the Director of Investment, Kolkatta, indicating the transactions as bogus. The Tax Case Appeal was admitted on substantial questions of law, including the Tribunal's dismissal of the request for stay of demand without considering complete facts and circumstances, jurisdictional issues, and fairness in granting stay.

During the hearing, the appellant's counsel presented a computation table showing the tax demanded and interest, with a partial payment made by the appellant. Despite arguments on the genuineness of transactions, the Court focused on the dismissal of the stay petition. Considering the appellant's payment and the interest of justice, the Court directed the appellant to deposit a further sum in installments for interim stay till the Appeal's disposal before the Tribunal. The judgment emphasized compliance with justice and fairness, allowing the Tribunal to proceed and dispose of the matter promptly.

In conclusion, the Appeal was disposed of without costs, with the connected Miscellaneous Petition closed. The judgment highlighted the importance of balancing the interests of the appellant and the requirements of justice in the context of tax demands and stay petitions, providing a structured approach for further proceedings before the Tribunal.

← Previous Next →