Tribunal denies stay petition for Rs. 1443.37 crores tax demand, citing Revenue's refund adjustments. Assessee can reapply post Pr.CIT's decision.

The Tribunal dismissed the stay petition regarding the outstanding tax demand of Rs. 1443.37 crores, as the Revenue was adjusting refunds without resorting to coercive measures. The Tribunal noted the assessee's past acceptance of such conditions and lack of urgency for a stay, allowing the assessee to file a new application post the Pr.CIT's decision.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Ad-interim stay of outstanding tax demand.
2. Prima facie case on merit.
3. Irreparable loss and balance of convenience.
4. Adjustment of refunds against outstanding demand.
5. Financial hardship and alternative contention for stay.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Ad-interim Stay of Outstanding Tax Demand:
The assessee sought an ad-interim stay of the outstanding tax demand amounting to Rs. 1443.37 crores. The application was filed after the assessee had already paid Rs. 560.57 crores out of the total demand of Rs. 2004.94 crores, including interest.

2. Prima Facie Case on Merit:
The assessee argued that the demand was not sustainable based on previous rulings in their favor. They provided a detailed note demonstrating how certain additions made by the AO were not sustainable, citing decisions of the ITAT and other appellate authorities. For instance, the Transfer Pricing upward adjustment of Rs. 1035.06 crores and disallowance under section 14A were covered by previous ITAT decisions for earlier assessment years.

3. Irreparable Loss and Balance of Convenience:
The assessee contended that the outstanding demand should be stayed due to financial hardship and suffering losses. They argued that recovery of the demand would cause irreparable loss, which could not be compensated in terms of money. They also cited CBDT instructions and various judicial decisions to support their claim for a stay.

4. Adjustment of Refunds Against Outstanding Demand:
The Revenue had proposed to adjust refunds from subsequent years against the outstanding demand. The assessee had previously agreed to such conditional orders, and the CIT-DR confirmed that the Revenue would not take any coercive measures like auctioning assets but would adjust refunds. The Tribunal noted that the Pr.CIT had already passed an order extending the stay of the outstanding demand with the condition of adjusting refunds.

5. Financial Hardship and Alternative Contention for Stay:
The assessee submitted that they were facing financial hardship and were ready to pay an additional Rs. 50 to Rs. 70 crores if the stay was granted. Alternatively, they requested that the stay be granted during the pendency of the application before the Pr.CIT and for 10 days thereafter to enable them to approach the Tribunal.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal, after considering the facts and circumstances, dismissed the stay petition. It held that there was no urgency to pass an order staying the outstanding demand since the Revenue was not adopting coercive measures and was only adjusting refunds. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had agreed to such conditional orders in the past and had not shown any grievance with the condition of adjusting refunds. The assessee was given the liberty to file a fresh application after the disposal of its application by the Pr.CIT.

---