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 Rs. 55,38,956 demand under Income Tax Act Section 143(3) for unexplained cash credit</h1> <h3>M/s. Aanya Developers Versus The Dy. CIT Central Circle-2 (2) Ahmedabad</h3> M/s. Aanya Developers Versus The Dy. CIT Central Circle-2 (2) Ahmedabad - TMI Issues involved:Stay on recovery of outstanding demand amounting to Rs. 55,38,956 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act - Granting a stay subject to deposit of Rs. 20,00,000 towards the outstanding demand - Keeping outstanding demand in abeyance till disposal of appeal by the Tribunal or for six months - Fixing the appeal for an expedited hearing - Consequences of seeking adjournment during the appeal hearing.Analysis:The assessee, a partnership firm engaged in property development and civil contracting, sought a stay on the recovery of an outstanding demand of Rs. 55,38,956 resulting from an assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) were related to unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,79,29,883 and interest on such credit totaling Rs. 3,01,277. The AO and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed these additions despite the submission of supporting documents by the assessee during the proceedings.During the hearing, the assessee's representative presented various pieces of evidence, including PAN copies, account confirmations, bank statements, and income tax returns, to substantiate the cash credits. Additionally, the representative highlighted the significant decline in the assessee's business and provided balance sheets, profit & loss accounts, and bank statements to support the claim of financial hardship. The assessee's lack of liquid funds further emphasized the potential genuine hardship if coercive actions were taken for recovery.After considering the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal decided to grant a stay on the outstanding demand subject to the deposit of Rs. 20,00,000 in two installments. The first installment of Rs. 10,00,000 was to be deposited by 28th February 2019, with the remaining amount due by 15th March 2019. This payment would constitute 52.06% of the total demand, including interest. The Tribunal ordered that the outstanding demand be kept in abeyance until the appeal's disposal or for six months, whichever is earlier, and scheduled an expedited hearing for 12th April 2019.Furthermore, the Tribunal warned that the assessee should not seek adjournment during the appeal hearing. Any adjournment request would empower the bench to revoke the stay order on the recovery of the outstanding demand. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the Stay Petition filed by the assessee, providing detailed instructions and timelines for compliance.This comprehensive analysis outlines the key issues addressed in the judgment, including the grounds for seeking a stay, the basis of additions made by the tax authorities, the evidence presented by the assessee, the financial situation of the assessee, the conditions imposed for granting the stay, and the procedural directives for the appeal hearing.
TaxTMI 