2019 (1) TMI 1264 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal grants stay on balance demand with conditions for compliance & deposit, emphasizing necessary requirements for continuation.

Smt. Santosh Gupta Versus The ITO, Ward-3 (2), Jaipur.

The Tribunal granted a stay on the balance demand for a period of three months or until the appeal disposal, whichever came earlier. The assessee was ... Stay of demand - recovery proceeding - Held that:- The assessee has already deposited a sum of ₹ 2,18,580/-. The assessee is hereby directed to deposit a further sum of ₹ 1 lacs on or before 31.01.2019 and the balance demand is stayed for a period of 3 months or till disposal of appeal, whichever is earlier. As the hearing in the matter is already scheduled for 11.03.2019. The ld AR has given an undertaking that he shall not seek any adjournment in the matter and where any adjournment is sought without showing reasonable cause to the satisfaction of the Bench, the stay so granted shall stand vacated. The assessee shall submit the necessary challan in proof of payment of the tax demand as directed above to the Assessing officer as well as a copy thereof to the Registry before the next date of hearing. Issues Involved:Stay application against outstanding demand arising from assessment order under section 143(3) - Rejection of explanation regarding source of cash deposit in bank account - Direction to deposit further sum and stay balance demand - Undertaking not to seek adjournment - Submission of necessary challan.Analysis:The judgment pertains to a stay application filed by the assessee against an outstanding demand resulting from an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3). The primary contention raised by the assessee was the non-acceptance of the explanation regarding the source of a cash deposit in her bank account. The assessee had sold agricultural land for a significant amount received in cash, which was subsequently deposited in the bank account. Despite declaring capital gains and offering them in the return of income, the Assessing Officer did not accept the explanation provided by the assessee. The assessee had already deposited a portion of the total demand, amounting to over 20% of the tax demand, and sought a stay on the balance amount pending appeal disposal.During the proceedings, the Assessing Officer opposed the stay petition and suggested directing the assessee to pay the remaining demand in installments within a specified timeframe. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had already deposited a substantial sum and directed the assessee to deposit an additional amount by a specified date. The Tribunal granted a stay on the balance demand for a period of three months or until the appeal disposal, whichever came earlier.Furthermore, the Tribunal scheduled a hearing in the matter and the assessee's representative provided an undertaking not to seek adjournment without reasonable cause. Any unwarranted adjournment would result in the vacation of the stay granted. The judgment emphasized the submission of necessary challan as proof of payment to the Assessing Officer and the Registry before the next hearing date. Ultimately, the stay application was disposed of based on the directions provided in the judgment, highlighting the importance of compliance with the specified requirements.In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues related to the outstanding demand, rejection of the explanation for cash deposit, direction for further deposit, stay on the balance demand, undertaking not to seek adjournment, and submission of necessary challan, providing a comprehensive resolution to the matter in consideration of the relevant legal provisions and factual circumstances.