Airport Retail Private Limited, 11, Venus Apartment, Opp, Joggers Park, Chikuwadi, Boriwali (W), Mumbai-400092 Vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), circle 8(1), Mumbai
July, 21st 2015
, " "
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "K" BENCH, MUMBAI
BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) AND SANJAY GARG, (JM)
.. , ,
Arising out of ITA. No. 1762/Mum/2014
( / Assessment Year : 2009-10)
Airport Retail Private Limited, / Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax
11, Venus Apartment, Vs. (OSD), circle 8(1),
Opp, Joggers Park, Mumbai
( /Appellant) .. ( / Respondent)
. / . / PAN/GIRNo.:AAFCA9796H
/ Appellant by : Shri Alisager Rampurwala
/Respondent by : Shri S T Bidari
/ Date of Hearing
/Date of Pronouncement : 17.7.2015
/ O R D E R
Per B.R.BASKARAN, Accountant Member:
The assessee has moved this Stay Application seeking extension of
the stay of outstanding demand of Rs.64,63,934/- raised by the AO for
assessment year 2006-07.
2. The Ld Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the
Tribunal granted stay of collection of outstanding, vide its order dated 19-
12-2014, subject to the payment of a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs on or before
31.01.2015. He submitted that the assessee has duly paid the above said
sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs on 22.01.2015 and he also brought to our attention
to the copy of payment challan placed as page 22 of the appeal papers.
2 SA No.200/Mum/2015
He submitted that the appeal was posted for hearing by the Tribunal on
26.02.2015 in its order referred above.
3. The Ld A.R submitted that the Ld D.R, on 26.02.2015, wanted the
bench to club the appeal with the appeal of the assessee pertaining to
earlier year and accordingly, the bench adjourned the matter to
15.04.2015. However, on the date of hearing on 15.04.2015, the Ld D.R
sought adjournment and hence the appeal was adjourned to 09.6.2015.
On that date, the appeal could not be heard for want of time and hence
the same was adjourned to 07.10.2015. Thus narrating the events, the Ld
A.R submitted that the assessee was not responsible for not completing
the appeals and further the stay granted by the Tribunal has already
expired. Accordingly, the ld A.R prayed that the stay already granted may
kindly be extended.
4. The Ld D.R, on the contrary, submitted that the assessee may be
asked to remit a portion of outstanding tax demand.
5. We heard the parties and perused the record. The Tribunal, vide its
order dated 19.12.2014, has already granted stay to the assessee subject
to the payment of Rs.5.00 lakhs and the said amount has already been
paid by the assessee. In the present petition, the assessee is seeking
extension of the stay, since the appeal could not be completed for the
reasons beyond the control of the assessee. Hence, at this juncture, it
may not be proper to review the earlier stay order passed by the Tribunal,
since there is no fault on the part of the assessee. Hence, we are of the
view that the present petition filed by the assessee deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, we direct the revenue not to collect the outstanding demand
for a period of six months from the date of this order or till the date of
disposal of appeal, whichever period expires earlier.
3 SA No.200/Mum/2015
6. We also direct the assessee not to seek adjournment without
reasonable cause, failing which the present stay order shall be subjected
to review by the division bench hearing the appeal.
7. In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is allowed.
The above order was pronounced in the open court on 17.7.2015.
( / SANJAY GARG) (.. ,/ B.R. BASKARAN)
/Judicial Member /Accountant Member
. ../ SRL , Sr. PS
/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. / The Appellant
2. / The Respondent.
3. () / The CIT(A)- concerned
4. / CIT concerned
5. , , /
DR, ITAT, Mumbai concerned
6. / Guard file.
/ BY ORDER,
, /ITAT, Mumbai