9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (7) TMI 1122 - AT - Income TaxStay of demand - recovery proceedings - HELD THAT - Assessee had already remitted more than 20% of the outstanding demand. We find that the provisions of Section 254(2A) of the Act read with first proviso thereon stipulates payment of 20% of the demand for the Tribunal to grant stay of demand. Though, in our considered opinion, the said proviso cannot be made applicable for extension of stay, as is present in the instant case before us, we still would like to rely on the said proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Act. Considering the compliance made to by the assessee to the said section 254(2A) of the Act; also considering the fact that the appeal for A.Y.2014-15 which was already heard by this Tribunal and order awaited thereon ; and further considering the fact that same addition was made in A.Y.2015-16 (i.e. the year under consideration before us), we are inclined to grant stay of demand for a period of six months from today or till the disposal of the appeal by this Tribunal for the A.Y.2015-16, whichever is earlier.
Issues: Stay application for demand raised for A.Y. 2015-16
Analysis: 1. Payment of Demand: The assessee had paid a significant portion of the demand raised, amounting to ?114.86 Crores out of ?292.92 Crores, which was confirmed by the AO. This constituted 39.21% of the demand. 2. Extension of Stay: The current application sought an extension of the stay previously granted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal had granted successive extensions up to 31/01/2021, as per orders from the Bombay High Court. The AO rejected the extension application, citing that the assessee had lost before the first appellate authority and the appeal was pending only before the Tribunal. 3. Comparison with A.Y. 2014-15: In a similar situation for A.Y. 2014-15, the AO had granted a stay of demand considering pending matters before the Tribunal. For A.Y. 2015-16, the AO initially granted a stay but later vacated it. The demand arose due to transfer pricing adjustments, similar to those in the A.Y. 2014-15 appeal awaiting Tribunal's order. 4. Legal Provisions: The Tribunal considered Section 254(2A) of the Act, which requires payment of 20% of the demand for granting stay. Although this provision may not directly apply to an extension of stay, the Tribunal relied on it due to the compliance made by the assessee. The Tribunal also factored in the pending appeal for A.Y. 2014-15 and the similarity of issues between the two assessment years. 5. Decision: Considering the compliance with Section 254(2A), the pending appeal for A.Y. 2014-15, and the similarity in TP adjustments between the two years, the Tribunal granted a stay of demand for six months or until the disposal of the appeal for A.Y. 2015-16, whichever is earlier. The stay petition of the assessee was allowed under these terms.
|
