Stay No. 970/Del/2018
(IN ITA No. 8009/Del/2018)
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCHES: `I-1', NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND
SMT. BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Stay No. 970/Del/2018
(IN ITA No. 8009/Del/2018)
AY: 2014-15
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs. DCIT, Circle- 16(1),
Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Room No. 312, C.R. Building
Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.
New Delhi, Pin- 110070.
PAN: AAACM0829Q
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rohit Jain, Adv.
Ms. Tejasavi Jain, Adv.
Department by : Sh. Sandeep Kr. Mishra, Sr.D.R.
Date of Hearing : 16/01/2019
Date of Pronouncement : 16/01/2019
ORDER
PER BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Present stay application has been filed by applicant, seeking
stay of outstanding demand inclusive of interest amounting to
Rs.15,95,19,13,370/-.
2. Ld.Counsel submitted that huge demand arises on account
of various additions/disallowances made in the assessment order
aggregating to Rs.3405.77 crores out of which certain
additions/disallowances are covered in favour of applicant by
Page 1 of 6
Stay No. 970/Del/2018
(IN ITA No. 8009/Del/2018)
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.
orders for preceding assessment years, passed by Hon'ble Delhi
High Court in assessee's own case, or by order of this Tribunal.
He submitted that except for issue relating to disallowance of CS
are expenditure, treatment of mutual fund income and
disallowance on purchase of Maruti Suzuki Corporation, for non-
deduction of tax, all other issues stands fully covered in favour of
assessee. Referring to a chart placed at page 72.1-72.2 being
Annexure-B of stay application, Ld.Counsel submitted that, all
these issues are recurring issues and are pending before this
Tribunal from assessment year 2010-11 onwards.
3. He referred to paper book wherein, stay orders passed for
earlier assessment years has been placed. Ld.Counsel submitted
that this Tribunal was pleased to keep the entire outstanding
demand in abeyance for recovery. He therefore stated that
balance of convenience shifts in favour of assessee and therefore
stay of entire outstanding demand deserves to be granted to
assessee.
4. On the contrary, Ld.Sr.DR submitted that, there is no
financial hardship established by assessee and therefore assessee
may be directed to pay at least 50% of outstanding demand in
view of this application.
5. We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in
the light of the records placed before us.
6. Referring to Annexure-B placed at page 72.1-72.2 of stay
application, it is observed that additions on account of
disallowance under section 43B, disallowance under section 14
a, disallowance of royalty paid and cess on royalty TP adjustment
on account of Brand royalty, disallowance on account of foreseen
Page 2 of 6
Stay No. 970/Del/2018
(IN ITA No. 8009/Del/2018)
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.
price increase, disallowance on account of warranty claimed,
sales tax exemption, computational errors while adding
disallowance in business income stands fully covered in favour of
assessee either by decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court or by
decision of this Tribunal in assessee's own case.
7. Further the remaining disallowances in respect of CSR
expenditure, claim of deduction under section 35 (2AB),
disallowance of purchases on account of non-deduction of tax
from payments made to SMC, income from trading in mutual
funds which has been treated as business income and not as
long-term/short term capital gain by Ld.AO are the only issue
that needs to be addressed by the parties and considered by this
Tribunal. The major addition amongst the undecided issues
pertains to disallowance of claim of deduction under section 35
(2AB) amounting to Rs.13,12,93,58,876/- and remaining
contested disallowances are small as compared to disallowance of
claim of deduction under section 35 (2AB). Further it is already
recorded in stay application No. 20/del/2016 in ITA No.
289/del/2016 for assessment year 2011-12 that Hon'ble Delhi
High Court in earlier years has stayed recovery on account of
disallowance of claim of deduction under section 35 (2AB).
Further Ld.Sr.DR has not been able to bring out on record any
distinguishing feature to take a different view. Under such
circumstances, we are not inclined to accept submissions of
Ld.Sr.DR for part payment of outstanding demand. Respectfully
following stay orders passed in preceding assessment years on
similar facts and circumstances, we are inclined exercise are
discretion by grantin stay of (180 days) recovery of outstanding
Page 3 of 6
Stay No. 970/Del/2018
(IN ITA No. 8009/Del/2018)
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.
demand for a period of 6 months or till disposal of appeal,
whichever is earlier.
8. Ld.Counsel submitted that, appeals for preceding
assessment years have been fixed for hearing on 31/01/2019.
Accordingly we direct registry to fix present appeal being ITA No.
8009/del/2018 on 31/01/19. Needless to say that assessee shall
not take any adjournments without there being any cogent
reason, or else the stay granted, would stand vacated.
9. In the result stay application filed by assessee stands
allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 16/01/2019.
Sd/- Sd/-
(R.K. PANDA) (BEENA A PILLAI)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dt. 16/01/2019
Bidhan
Page 4 of 6
Stay No. 970/Del/2018
(IN ITA No. 8009/Del/2018)
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.
Copy forwarded to: -
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(A)
5. DR, ITAT
- TRUE COPY -
By Order,
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
ITAT Delhi Benches
Page 5 of 6
Stay No. 970/Del/2018
(IN ITA No. 8009/Del/2018)
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.
S.No. Details Date
1 Draft dictated on Dragon 16/01/19
2 Draft placed before author 16/01/19
Draft proposed & placed 16/01/19
3
before the Second Member
Draft discussed/approved 16/01/19
4
by Second Member
Approved Draft comes to
5
the Sr. PS/PS
6 Kept for pronouncement 16/01/19
7. Order uploaded on
8 File sent to Bench Clerk
Date on which the file
9
goes to Head Clerk
Date on which file goes to
10
A.R.
11 Date of Dispatch of order
Page 6 of 6
|
