9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 906X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d return of income declaring a revised loss of Rs. 37,46,20,330. Draft assessment order was passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') proposing to assess the income of the applicant at Rs. 226,56,10,452 after proposing various additions and disallowances to the returned income. Against the draft assessment order, the applicant filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) - II, New Delhi, seeking directions for deletion of various proposed additions/ disallowances. DRP, vide its order dated 30.12.2015 passed under section 144C(5) of the Act, confirmed most of the additions/disallowances proposed in the draft assessment order without judiciously considering and appreciating the legal and factual objections of the applicant to the proposed draft order. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions of the DRP, assessment was completed vide order dated 29.01.2016 passed under section .143(3) r.w.s 144C of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs. 207,95,55,288, after making several additions/ disallowances. As a result of the aforesaid order passed under section 143(3), of the Act, income tax demand of Rs. 108 crores ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... involved is addition u/s 68 of the income tax act on account of issue of share capital of Rs. 186 crores at a huge premium, naturally, the demand disputed in the appeal is majorly also related to that only. 05. Against the above disputed demand, the applicant made payment of Rs. 15 crores as per direction given in original stay order dated 02.03.2016 and accordingly, balance demand of Rs. 93 crores [Rs. 108 crores (-) Rs. 15 crores] is currently outstanding and disputed by the applicant in this extension of stay application. Appeal has been filed before the Tribunal on 11.02.2016 bearing ITA No.753/Del/2016 and was last listed for hearing on April 15, 2020 as part heard appeal before the Bench. However, due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the consequent nationwide lockdown, the matter could not be taken up for hearing on April 15, 2020. The next date of hearing is yet to be notified. The applicant filed application seeking stay of the outstanding demand before the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- Circle-16(l), New Delhi. The Tribunal vide order dated 2.3.2016 (hereinafter referred to as "First Stay Order") in stay application No. 111/Del/2016, granted stay of outstanding de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itions/ applications/ suits/ appeals/ all other proceedings held that "to obviate such difficulties and to ensure that lawyers/litigants do not have to come physically to file such proceedings in respective Courts/Tribunals across the country including this Court, it is hereby ordered that a period of limitation in all such proceedings, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the general law or Special Laws whether condonable or not shall stand extended w.e.f. 15th March 2020 till further order/s to be passed by this Court in present proceedings". The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P. Urgent 2/2020 vide order dated 25.03.2020, taking suo motu cognizance of the extraordinary circumstances, held that where any interim orders in the nature of stay, bail, paroles, etc., have been passed in favor of parties by the Hon'ble Court and courts subordinate to it, and such orders were subsisting on 16.03.2020, the operation of such orders shall stand automatically extended to 15/5/2020 or till further orders. In the present case, considering that stay granted by the Tribunal vide order sheet dated 21.01.2020 was subsisting on 16.03.2020, in view of the aforesaid orders of the Hon'ble Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atter at any point of time and the delay is not on assessee side. It is the Revenue who has always taken adjournment from time to time. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee has paid Rs. 5 crore as on 7th August 2020 in addition to the originally paid Rs. 15 crore at the time of Stay granted initially in the year 2016. Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that the Stay may be extended till further period. 09. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We have perused the stay order passed by the coordinate bench innocent number 1096/del/2019 on 1/1/2020. The coordinate bench held in para number 4-6 as Under:- "4. We have considered these contentions in detail. The submission of the revenue is to the financial status of the assessee is not controverted. On the other hand it could be seen from the record that the assessee is also covered by the proceedings u/s 19 of the recovery of the debts and bankruptcy act, 1993 initiated by the banker, namely excess bank Ltd before the debt recovery tribunal and the order passed by such a forum. Record further speaks that the balance sheet, the profit and loss account and its cash flow statement as at 31st of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unced in open court on first January 2 020." 10. On 7/1/2020, when the appeal along with the stay petitions were called for, the learned departmental representative for the revenue moved an application for adjournment of the case on the ground that one of the issues involved relates to corporate guarantee where revenue has moved an application before the honourable Pres for constituting a special bench which is still pending. The learned counsel for the assessee on the other hand vehemently oppose the adjournment request on the ground that there is no such application pending before the honourable Pres. Learned authorised representative also brought on record the hardship of the assessee complying with the stay order dated 1/1/2020 in stay application number 1096/del/2019 as assessee has already been restrained by DRT from creating any lien over the assets. Since, regular CIT (DR) is not available therefore one more opportunities given to the learned CIT (DR) to find out the fact to whether of special bench for corporate guarantee is required to be constituted or not, by the next date of hearing failing which the case self be fixed for regulating hearing by the bench itself. Keepi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... company is solely invested in the loans and advances which are mostly advance tax. Thus, the total net worth of the company is invested in government dues. The main reason of the negative net worth of the company is apparent from the balance sheet of 2017 wherein cumulatively assessee has written of the investment in subsidiaries of Rs. 1772 crores. Along with the audited accounts, the financial statement or audited financial statements of subsidiaries were not provided. But, according to the words of the assessee, total investment in the subsidiary of Rs. 1772 crores is worthless. Without having the financials of the subsidiary company and mainly the loss arising on account of writing of the permanent diminution in the value of the investment in the subsidiaries of the company of Rs. 1772 crores, it cannot be measured whether the assessee has anything to pay to the government of India towards this tax dues. In this situation, as per the order of the coordinate bench dated first of January 2020, the interest of the revenue is grossly hampered if the assessee is granted further stay of demand, despite assessee paying further Rs. 5 crores towards the outstanding dues. In view of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he stay is granted. Subsequent statement of affairs presented before us do not show that we are in any way be keeping the interest of the revenue safeguarded. For the sake of further clarifying the things that even before us, despite repeatedly asking, no information about the present directors of the company was given. Therefore, keeping the interest of the revenue uppermost in mind, we decline to further extend the stay of demand and forthwith vacate stay granted to the assessee. 16. The Ld. DR relied upon the decision of L. Chandra Kumar (supra) and submitted that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's direction is not applicable to the Tribunal in particular. We have gone through all the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by the various Hon'ble High Courts including the Jurisdictional High Court i.e. Hon'ble Delhi High Court. In various Hon'ble High Courts across India and the Hon'ble Supreme Court while direction in Covid-19 situation has categorically mentioned the word "Tribunal" as well but that is absent in the direction issued by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court as well Hon'ble Delhi High Court. However, after seeing the scenario of Cov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
