9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1284X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iding the regular appeal to be heard by the Tribunal against the tax demand of 145.15 crores and interest to the extent of 98.83 crores totalling to 243.98 crores approximately. The assessee had sought Stay of 172,45,08,305/- of net demand and a sum of 70 crores had already been paid by the petitioner- assessee. Tribunal had itself given a suggestion in para-2 quoted above of the impugned order, that if the assessee further deposits a sum of 51 crores in addition to 70 crores already deposited against the total demand of 242.45 crores, the Tribunal may consider the grant of Stay for the remaining demand, but since the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee before the learned Tribunal declined the said suggestion, the learned Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceeding to decide the stay application on Merit. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The AO has firstly raised the demand u/s.14A as the assessee was having dividend income from the investment made by the assessee. In our view, this issue of disallowance of interest income u/s.14A of the Act is required to be examined in detail and prima facie it cannot be said that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by virtue of the Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Joint Investments (supra), the assessee is required to establish various facts before seeking application of Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The second addition is in respect of interest income earned on interest- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... position, the assessee company had not made out a case for stay of the demand. In the circumstances, the stay petition filed by the assessee is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. It is made clear that by dismissing the application we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. In case the Revenue loses the matters at the time of final hearing, it shall refund to the appellants the amount deposited or recovered with interest." 3. Mr. N. Venkataraman, learned senior counsel, urged before the Court that the learned Tribunal has erred in rejecting the stay application altogether, whereas the substantial demand of the impugned demand of ₹ 172.45 crores on account of disallowance of interest payment on borrowings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned Tribunal in the interlocutory order about the coverage of the controversy by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.A. Builders Ltd. case (supra) or otherwise, does not finally express the view of the said Tribunal and such observations are only tentative. The Tribunal has touched the well settled parameters, while considering the interim prayers of the appellants before them namely (i) existence of a prima facie case (ii) balance of convenience and (iii) irreparable injury caused to the appellant, in case such interim relief is not granted. 5. It is well settled that these parameters for consideration of the stay application even under Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC, which governs the Appellate Courts and Civil Courts apply equally to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it is left to the best discretion of the learned Tribunal only with a request to the Tribunal to hear the matter as expeditiously as possible. But, this Court is not inclined to tinker with the said impugned interlocutory order in the present writ petition because as far as entertaining of the writ petitions against such interlocutory orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is concerned, the scales of justice cannot be different for the Revenue and for the assessee, and for this Court, both the parties, in such circumstances, are equally placed.
Consequently, this Court declines to interfere with the impugned interlocutory order. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. No costs. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
