Court stays tax demand on trust acquiring NPAs, pending appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) due to similarities in past decisions.

The Court granted a stay on tax demand pending appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) in a case involving a trust seeking to acquire Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) from banks. The Assessing Officer's disallowances and additions were challenged, with the Court noting similarities to cases where such additions were previously deleted by the appellate Commissioner. As there was no material change in facts or law, the Court prohibited recoveries pending appeal, allowing the Revenue to file a reply and adjourning the case.

---

---

Issues:
1. Stay on tax demand pending appeal before Commissioner (Appeals)
2. Disallowances and additions made by Assessing Officer
3. Request for full waiver of recovery rejected by Principal Commissioner
4. Prima facie assessment orders based on same additions previously deleted by appellate Commissioner
5. Lack of material change in facts or law for additions made by Assessing Officer

Analysis:
1. The petitions involved a common background where the petitioner, a trust, aimed to acquire Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) from banks and recover dues from defaulters. The Assessing Officer passed an order of assessment for the assessment year 2016-17, resulting in a tax demand of Rs. 6.69 crores. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and requested the Assessing Officer to keep the tax demand in abeyance. However, the Assessing Officer directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the tax demand, leading to the petitioner seeking a full waiver of recovery from the Principal Commissioner, which was rejected, prompting the filing of the petition.

2. The counsel for the petitioner highlighted that the additions made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment orders were similar to those made in the hands of other trusts created under ARCIL. The appellate Commissioner had previously allowed the appeal of another assessee, deleting all additions made by the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner, in the impugned order, observed that the appellate Commissioner's decision had not been accepted by the Revenue, and no appeal could be filed due to low tax effect in other cases.

3. The Court noted that the assessment orders in the present case were seemingly based on the same additions and disallowances that had been previously deleted by the appellate Commissioner, which currently held sway. Citing a previous case, the Court emphasized the relevance of considering whether there had been a material change in facts or law when deciding on a stay application. The Revenue failed to demonstrate any such material change in the present case, indicating that recoveries pending the appeal should not proceed.

4. Consequently, the Court allowed the Revenue to file a reply and adjourned the petitions to a later date. In the interim, the respondents were prohibited from carrying out recoveries stemming from the assessment orders, given the lack of apparent justification for the additions made by the Assessing Officer without any material change in facts or law.

---