IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
               " D " BENCH, AHMEDABAD
      Before Shri A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
           and Shri KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER
                  Stay Petition No.14 & 15/Ahd/2013
                                  IN
                  I.T.A. No.2794 & 2795 / Ahd/2011
                (Assessment year 2006-07 & 2007-08)

Enviro Control Associates (I) P.     Vs.      DCIT, Circle 1, Surat
Ltd., Enviro House,
Opp. Bank of Maharashtra,
Ghod Dod Road, Surat

       PAN/GIR No. : AAACE8700C

         (APPELLANT)                    ..          (RESPONDENT)

          Appellant by:                 Shri Supnesh Seth, CA
          Respondent by:                Shri T. Sunkar, Sr. DR

            Date of hearing:       12.02.1013
            Date of pronouncement: 12.02.2013
                             ORDER

PER SHRI A. K. GARODIA, AM:-

      As per these two stay petitions filed by the assessee, the assessee is
seeking stay of outstanding demand on account of penalty imposed by the
A.O. u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961.           The amount of
outstanding demand for assessment year 2006-07 is of Rs.83,65,791/- and
for assessment year 2007-08 is of Rs.85,61,036/-.
2.    It was submitted by the Ld. A.R. before us that these penalties in
both these years were imposed by the A.O. in respect of the additions
made by him on account of disallowance of the assessee's claims for
deduction u/s 80-IA(4).    He submitted that the quantum appeals are
                                     2        Stay Applicaiton.Nos.14 & 15 /Ahd/2013






pending before the tribunal and the total outstanding demand in respect of
the quantum addition is paid by the assessee in all these years. Regarding
demand on account of penalty also, it was submitted that similar penalty
was imposed in assessment year 2004-05 of Rs.1,52,41,496/- and the
same was paid in full and these stay applications are only in respect of the
penalty demand for the assessment years 2006-07 & 2007-08 and,
therefore, stay should be granted in respect of penalty demand for these
two years.    When the Bench wanted to know about the amount the
assessee can pay against the outstanding demand for these two years, it
was submitted that a token amount can be paid by the assessee for these
two assessment years. As against this, Ld. D.R. submitted that at least
50% of the outstanding demand for both these assessment years should be
paid by the assessee and stay should be granted for the balance amount
only.
3.      We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the total
outstanding demand including interest has been paid by the assessee in
respect of quantum addition for all the three assessment years i.e.
assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08. The penalty demand is
also paid by the assessee for the assessment year 2005-06 and before us,
stay application is only in respect of penalty demand for assessment year
2006-07 & 2007-08. Considering the facts of the present case, we feel
that if the assessee makes payment of Rs.10 lacs against the outstanding
penalty demand for each of these two assessment years, then stay can be
granted to the assessee for the balance outstanding penalty demand. We
hold accordingly. The assessee should make payment of Rs.10 lacs for
each of these two assessment years against the outstanding penalty
demand and the balance outstanding penalty demand should be stayed till
the disposal of the assessee's appeals or for a period of 6 months
                                    3        Stay Applicaiton.Nos.14 & 15 /Ahd/2013




whichever is earlier. This amount of Rs.10 lacs in each assessment year
totaling Rs.20 lacs should be paid by the assessee on or before 15th Feb.
2013. Regarding hearing of the appeals, it was submitted by the Ld. A.R.
that quantum appeals are fixed for hearing on 18.02.2013 and hence,
these penalty appeals may also be fixed on the same date. We, therefore,
fix these penalty appeals for the same date i.e. for 18.02.213. If the
penalty appeal for the assessment year 2005-06 is also pending, the
matter may be placed before Hon'ble Vice President, ITAT, Ahmedabad
for fixing the same together with the penalty appeals for assessment years
2006-07 & 2007-08. Since, the date of hearing for these two penalty
appeals for assessment years 2006-07 & 2007-08 has already been
announced in the open court, no separate notice of hearing is required to
be issued to the assessee. We want to make it clear that the assessee
should not seek adjournment on this date of hearing except for
unavoidable circumstances.
4.    In the result, both the stay applications of the assessee are allowed
in the terms indicated above.
5.    Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned
hereinabove.






               Sd./-                                         Sd./-
(KUL BHARAT)                                 (A. K. GARODIA)
JUDICIAL MEMBER                              ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Sp
Copy of the Order forwarded to:
   1.    The applicant
   2.    The Respondent
   3.    The CIT Concerned
   4.    The Ld. CIT (Appeals)
   5.    The DR, Ahmedabad                           By order
   6.    The Guard File
                                                     AR,ITAT,Ahmedabad
                                 4        Stay Applicaiton.Nos.14 & 15 /Ahd/2013




1. Date of dictation...12/02/2013
2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the
   Dictating Member...12/02/2013.Other Member ............
3. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr. P.S./P.S.
4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member
   for pronouncement ...12/02/2013
5. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr. P.S./P.S.13/02
6. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk ......13/02/2013
7. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk .......................
8. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for
   signature on the order .........................
9. Date of Despatch of the order. ......................