SA No.287 to 289 of 2012 Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd Mumbai
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
"H " Bench, Mumbai
Before Shri B. Ramakotaiah, Accountant Member
and Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member
SA No.287 to 289/Mum/2012
(Arising out of ITA No.4839 to 4841/Mum/2011)
(Assessment years: 1999-2000, 2003-04 & 2004-05)
Hindustan Organic Chemicals Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of
Ltd, 2nd floor, Harchandrai Income Tax, Circle-B(2),
House, 81 Maharshi Karve Mumbai-400020
Road, Mumbai 400002
PAN: AAACH 2663 P
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by: Shri K.Gopal/Jitender Singh
Department by: Shri Amardeep, DR
Date of Hearing: 02/11/2012
Date of Pronouncement: 02/11/2012
ORDER
Per B. Ramakotaiah, A.M.
These stay petitions are filed by assessee seeking stay of
disputed demand to an extent of `.1.48 crores. Assessee is a Public
Limited Company engaged in the business of manufacturing and
trading of chemicals and has been continuously declaring losses. In
all these years the issue of demand pertains to levy of penalty under
section 271(1)(c).
2. The learned Counsel submitted that AO made additions on
account of depreciation claims, valuation of closing stock,
disallowance of prior period expenses, disallowances under section
43B and of similar nature and assessee being in perpetual losses,
did not contest major additions as the benefit would be given in
other years. In view of this it was submitted that levy of penalty
under section 271(1)(c) is not warranted on the facts of the case as
these are only disallowances made in the course of the assessment
which do not attract levy of penalty. He also placed on record the
balance sheet of the company to explain the financial position and
Page 1 of 2
SA No.287 to 289 of 2012 Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd Mumbai
requested for staying of the demand. In A.Y 1999-2000 on the issue
of section 263, the case was posted on 14.11.2012 and requested
for granting hearing on that day along with that appeal.
3. The learned DR however, objected to the stay petitions.
4. We have considered the issue. Considering the nature of the
additions/disallowances made, we are of the view that there is a
prima facie case in favour of assessee. Assessee's financial position
also suggests that the demands raised cannot be paid immediately.
Considering these facts we grant stay of the demand for a period of
six months or disposal of the appeal whichever is earlier. The cases
are posted on 14.11.2012. Assessee should not seek any
adjournment without any valid reason. The parties were informed
about the posting of the cases on the day and issuance of separate
notice is dispensed with.
5. In the result, stay applications filed by assessee are allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 2nd November, 2012.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Amit Shukla) (B. Ramakotaiah)
Judicial Member Accountant Member
Mumbai, dated 2nd November, 2012.
Vnodan/sps
Copy to:
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. The concerned CIT(A)
4. The concerned CIT
5. The DR, " H " Bench, ITAT, Mumbai
By Order
Assistant Registrar
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Mumbai Benches, MUMBAI
Page 2 of 2
|
