News shortcuts: From the Courts | Top Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | Professional Updates | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
« From the Courts »
 M/s Designarch Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd C/o Raj Kumar & Associates, CAs L – 7A[LGF], South Extension, Part –II New Delhi Vs. The I.T.O Ward – 7(1) New Delhi
 The ACIT, Circle – 59(1), Room No.101, F-Block, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi Vs. M/s. Vasundhara Flavours (Presently known as Gopal Consumer World), 339, Functional Industrial Estate, Patparganj, New Delhi – 110 092.
 The ACIT, Central Circle 25, Room No.322, III Floor, ARA Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. Vs. M/s. Digicall Teleservices P. Ltd., D-7 Dhawandeep Apartments, 6 Jantar Mantar Road, New Delhi.
 DCIT, Circle – 10(1), New Delhi. Vs. M/s. Girdhar International Pvt. Ltd., F-16, Udyoug Nagar, Peeragari, New Delhi – 110 041.
 M/s. Cellnext Solutions Ltd., New Delhi. Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 5 (4), New Delhi. (
 The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 5 (4), New Delhi. vs. M/s. Direct Sales Pvt. Ltd., No.7, Village – Tigipur, P.O. Bakhtawarpur, Delhi – 36.
 Noida Power Co. Ltd.,Gr. Noida,Commercial Complex, H-Block, Alpha-Ii Sector Greater Noida Noida Vs. Dcit, Circle-2,Noida
 Savita Raj, C-14, Sector-56,Noida,Uttar Pradesh-201301 Vs. Acit, Circle-3,Noidaroom No. 410, 4th Floora-2d, Sector-24, Noida
 Curewell (India) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer
 Geeta Narang, 2768, Gali Arya Samaj, Bazar Sita Ram Delhi – 110 006. Vs. ACIT Circle – 46(1), New Delhi
 M/s Precision Gauges & Tools P. Ltd., 283, Agcr Enclave, New Delhi – 110 092 Vs. Acit, Circle 20(1), New Delhi

Sneh Lata Sawhney, 6, Link Road, Jangpura extension, New Delhi. vs. DCIT, Central circle-7 New Delhi
July, 19th 2019
                        DELHI BENCH: 'G' NEW DELHI

                       Stay application No. 749/del/2019
                             ITA No. 4 1 9 /D el/ 2017
                             (Assessm ent Year: 2012-13)

                                        vs         DCIT,
 Sneh Lata Saw hney,                               Central circle-7
 6, Link Road, Jangpura extension,                 New Delhi
 New Delhi.

                                             Revenue by  Sh.   Dr Rakesh Gupta,
                                                         Sh.   Som ill Agraw al,
                                                         Sh.   Tarun, advocates
                                             Assessee by Sh.   Ashim a Neb, Sr. DR

                                                 Date of Hearing       19/7/2019
                                             Date of Pronouncem ent    19/7/2019



             By w ay of this Stay Application, assessee is seeking stay of

outstanding dem and to the tune of Rs. 23, 80, 575/-. Case of the assessee is

relating to the addition made by the learned AO and assessing the incom e of the

assessee at a Rs. 1, 12, 56, 370/- as against the returned incom e of Rs. 17, 92,

770/- and in spite of subm itting the valid reasons for deletion of the same,

learned CIT(A) confirm ed the same. It is further subm itted that out of the total

demand of Rs. 39, 47, 740/-, which shall include the tax com ponent of Rs. 29,

24, 252/- and interest of Rs. 10, 23, 488/-, the assessee had already paid a sum

of Rs. 15, 67, 165 /- and the outstanding is only a sum of Rs. 23, 80, 575/-.

2.        It is the subm ission on behalf of the assessee that the assessee is an old

lady of 78 years of age and she has got an excellent prima facie case in view of

the fact that the assessm ent order was barred by lim itation inasm uch as the

search was conducted on 28/7/2011 and lim itation under section 153B of the

Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") expense by 31/3/2014 whereas the

impugned assessm ent order was passed on 02/03/2015. It is further submitted

that the jew ellery received by the assessee on many as species occasions was

covered by the disclosure jew ellery as per the wealth tax return and the

protective addition is to the tune of Rs. 45, 6 2 ,432/-qua which a recovery cannot

 be enforced.

 3.       It is further subm itted on behalf of the assessee that an am ount of Rs. 15,

 67, 165/-which constitutes about 39.69% of total demand has already been

 com plied with and the learner learned Assessing Officer issued letter dated

 28/02/2019 requesting the assessee to file an affidavit of no objection to adjust

 the seized am ount of Rs. 5.50 Lacs from the balance of 3 persons from whose

 prem ises the am ount was seized, and the assessee is ready to file such an

 affidavit. Insofar as irreparable loss is concerned, assessee being an old Hindu

 wom an has sentim ent and attachm ent with the jew ellery that was presented to

     her on auspicious occasions, and if no stay is granted, as indicated by the learned

     Assessing Officer in the letter dated 26/6/2019, such jew ellery would be sold

     and it would cause a rude shock to hire sentim ent and rights.

     4.     In so far as this factual subm ission is concerned, there is no denial from

     the other side. Ld. DR subm itted that the am ount of Rs. 5.5 Lacs in respect of

     which the assessee is ready to file the affidavit was seized from the prem ises of

     which 3 other persons were also owners. However, the fact rem ains that the

     learned Assessing Officer issued such a notice dated 28/02/2019 asking the

affidavit of the assessee to file no objection for adjusting the sam e in the case

of late Sh. BL Saw hney.

5.    Be that as it may, the fact rem ains that as on the date out of the total

demand of Rs. 39, 47, 740/-, the assessee made paym ent of Rs. 15, 6 7 ,165/-and

it constitutes about 40% of the total dem and. Stay of the outstanding is sought

on the ground that there is a strong prima facie case in view of the legal plea

taken by the assessee and balance of convenience in their favour and if the stay

is not granted, it w ould cause irreparable loss and injury affecting badly the

sentim ent of an old Hindu w om an with the jew ellery that is proposed to be sold.

6.    Having regard to the facts and circum stances surrounding this case, we

are convinced that it is a fit case to grant stay of enforcem ent of the outstanding

demand for a period of 6 m onths or the disposal of appeal, w hichever is earlier

with the rid e rth a tth e assessee shall always be read yto proceed with the matter

on merits. Further, in view of the grant of this stay, we deem it necessary to

dispose of this appeal at the earliest possible tim e, as such, we direct the

Registry to fix it out of turn on 23/9/2019. Since the next date of hearing is

announced in the open court in the knowledge of the counsel of either side, no

fresh notice need be issued.

7.     In the result, Stay Application is allowed.

       Order pronounced in the Open Court on 19/7/2019.

Dated: 19/7/2019
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2019 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting