TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Grants Stay on Recovery of Disputed Demand Amid Financial Hardship</h1> <h3>Shri M. Kiran Kumar Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1 (4), Chennai</h3> The Tribunal granted a stay from the recovery of the outstanding disputed demand of Rs. 37,05,16,734 until the final disposal of the appeal for the ... Stay of demand - Recovery proceedings - extension of interim stay - HELD THAT:- In this case, the interim order was passed on 25.02.2020 and thereafter it was extended on 17.03.2020. Thereafter, the Bench did not function. The assessee did not file any document establishing financial difficulties. However, the ld. Counsel for the assessee pleaded that due to pandemic, the assessee is unable to run the business and faced difficulties to pay the outstanding demand. Considering the present pandemic situation, we fix the appeal for hearing on 07.12.2020 with a direction to the assessee as well as the Department to cooperate for concluding the final hearing of the appeal. We further direct that the Department not to take any coercive steps to recover the outstanding demand till next date of hearing i.e. 07.12.2020. Issues:Grant of stay from recovery of outstanding disputed demand till final disposal of appeal for assessment year 2015-16.Analysis:The assessee filed a petition seeking a stay from recovery of the outstanding disputed demand of Rs. 37,05,16,734 until the final disposal of the appeal for the assessment year 2015-16. The Tribunal had previously granted a stay that expired, leading to the filing of another stay petition. The Tribunal granted early hearing and passed an interim order directing the Department not to take coercive steps to recover the outstanding amount until the next date of hearing. Due to the pandemic, subsequent hearing dates were adjourned. The assessee claimed financial hardship due to the pandemic, stating the business had come to a standstill even before the lockdown announcement. The assessee had paid 20% of the disputed demand but was unable to pay the balance due to financial difficulties. The counsel prayed for a stay of recovery of the outstanding demand.Analysis:The ld. DR vehemently opposed the grant of stay, arguing that the assessee had intentionally prolonged the matter by asking for adjournments. During the hearing, both sides were heard through video conferencing, and the records were perused. The interim order was passed, and subsequent adjournments were due to the Bench not functioning. The assessee did not provide any documents to establish financial difficulties, but the counsel argued that the pandemic had impacted the business, making it difficult to pay the outstanding demand. Considering the pandemic situation, the Tribunal fixed the appeal for hearing with directions for both the assessee and the Department to cooperate for concluding the final hearing. The Department was directed not to take any coercive steps to recover the outstanding demand until the next date of hearing.Analysis:The Tribunal disposed of the stay petition filed by the assessee with the directions mentioned above. The order was pronounced on 29th October 2020 in Chennai.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
