9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1076X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that, in case of breach of any of the said conditions, the stay granted would automatically get vacated and the matter would be heard in ordinary course. Hence, we dismiss the stay applications moved by applicant. - SA Nos.121 to 126/PUN/2018 And IT(SS)A Nos.45 to 50/PUN/2017 - - - Dated:- 18-12-2018 - MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM For The Applicant : Shri S.N. Doshi Pratik Sandbhor For The Respondent : Shri Sanjeev Ghei ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM: The captioned Stay Applications are moved by the applicant for stay of demand totaling ₹ 142.76 crores relating to assessment years 2008-09 to 2014-15. 2. The applicant had earlier moved stay applications before the Tribunal and vide order dated 10.11.2017, the stay applications were disposed of, under which the assessee was directed to deposit ₹ 18 crores in three installments of ₹ 6 crores each by 30.11.2017, 30.12.2017 and 15.01.2018. The balance demand was stayed subject to the fulfillment of said conditions and out of turn hearing was also granted to the applicant on 18.01.2018 subject again to payment of ₹ 18 crores. It was also mentioned that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of Revenue is that in view of incriminating documents found, the applicant trust is not entitled to the said exemption under section 11 of the Act. The total income other than violation under section 13 of the Act which is assessed in the hands of applicant for the captioned assessment years is ₹ 266.23 crores. Further, the income attracting violation under section 13 of the Act for the respective years totals to ₹ 57.43 crores. The same is based on the incriminating documents found during search. The total tax on ₹ 57.43 crores is ₹ 17.23 crores and including the surcharge and interest, the outstanding demand is ₹ 24.13 crores. The applicant claims the benefit of TDS of ₹ 1.27 crores and regular payment of ₹ 5.25 crores against the same, the Revenue has worked out the balance demand in this regard to ₹ 17.58 crores. On the other hand, the total demand created in the case of applicant is ₹ 103.99 crores and the balance demand after including interest under section 234B of the Act and after allowing credit for TDS and taxes paid is ₹ 142.98 crores. In the facts of the case while granting stay for recovery of outstanding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6,24,07,757 8,72,36,865 18,37,666 1,45,00,000 7,08,99,200 17,23,00,512 24,13,02,780 1,29,31,124 5,25,00,000 17,58,71,656 12. The learned Authorized Representative for the applicant has not controverted the working of the demand on income attracting the violation under section 13 of the Act. It was the case of applicant before us that the said income totaled ₹ 57.43 crores, which is mentioned in his written submissions also. However, against the same, he has time and again pleaded that sum of ₹ 24.10 crores has been alleged to be siphoned by Mr.M.N. Navale by the authorities below and for the balance amount, there were no equivalent assets. However, we find no merit in the plea of learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in this regard. The addition has been made in the hands of applicant on the basis of incriminating documents and in any case the merits of case are still open for discussion, since we are only disposing of stay application against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eposit the taxes as stated in (a) above, then the case would come for hearing in normal course and not be considered as stay granted matter. d) That out of turn hearing is granted on 18.01.2018 subject to payment of ₹ 18 crores; no separate notice of hearing would be issued by the Registry; e) That the applicant shall not seek frivolous adjournments. If Paper Book is desired to be filed by the applicant, then the same should be submitted well in advance as prescribed in ITAT Rules; f) In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the stay granted shall automatically get vacated and matter would be heard in ordinary course. 16. Subject to the fulfillment of the above conditions, the balance outstanding demand is stayed for a period of 180 days from the date of this order or till disposal of the appeal, whichever is earlier. 3. The present stay applications have been moved again by applicant in respect of outstanding demand relating to the aforesaid issues itself. The learned Authorized Representative for the applicant pointed out that after stay applications were disposed of by the Tribunal, Writ Petition was filed before the Hon ble Bombay Hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plicant before us with the remedy of approaching the High Court to tender an unqualified apology and also to make the offer of payment/deposit as made before them. Thus, the applicant again approached the Hon'ble High Court against the said order of the Hon ble High Court dated 05.01.2018. The Hon ble High Court in Civil Application (L) No.6021 of 2018 in Writ Petition No.13099 of 2017 vide order dated 27.09.2018 held that because of very objectionable conduct of the President of applicant, the Writ Petition was dismissed and that order having been unsuccessfully challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held that the Writ Petition could not be restored, which stood dismissed. 4. Simultaneously, criminal suo motu contempt proceedings were carried by the Hon ble High Court against the President of applicant society vide criminal suo motu Contempt Petition No.1 of 2018 in Writ Petition No.13099/2017, order dated 28.08.2018. The Hon ble High Court directed the President of applicant Tax Recovery Officer to undergo simple imprisonment in civil prison for seven days and also to pay fine of ₹ 2,000/- each. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 05.10.2018 in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finally disposed of his plea of grant of stay and Writ Petition was dismissed on the issues other than main issue, because of the conduct of the President of applicant. 7. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue on the other hand, took us through the conduct of President of applicant and the Hon ble High Court taking suo-motu initiation of civil and criminal contempt proceedings against the President of applicant and he also referred to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein the applicant filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the dismissal of Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 05.10.2018. The applicant s plea for restoration of Writ Petition was also dismissed by the Hon ble Supreme Court and even the prayer for disposal of appeals pending before the Tribunal was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 8. Another point which was pointed out by the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue that if we accept plea of applicant that when there are no funds available, but after re-depositing the amounts wrongly withdrawn i.e. ₹ 9.18 crores a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It is reiterated that in fact, there are no changes in facts except the amounts as claimed by the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee. The Tribunal thus, has no power to review or revisit the issues already decided on same facts especially where the Hon ble High Court has dismissed the Writ Petition against earlier stay order of Tribunal, where the Hon ble High Court had noted the conduct of applicant in Writ Petition challenging the stay order passed by Tribunal and even suo motu initiated civil and criminal contempt proceedings held that the conduct of the petitioner during the pendency of the petition disentitles it to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore we dismiss the petition. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also not allowed the petition of applicant for early hearing. Hence we find no justification in the present stay applications moved by applicant and the same are dismissed. In our considered view, since the applicant has not complied with earlier directions of the Tribunal to deposit part of tax amount within time frame fixed, then earlier order of Tribunal would stand that, in case of breach of any of the said conditions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
