2021 (6) TMI 391 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Grants Stay for Disputed Tax Demands, Sets Conditions for Appeal Hearings

Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Intl. Taxation), Circle-1 (1), Bangalore.

The Tribunal granted a stay of the outstanding demand for a period of six months or until the disposal of the appeals in a case involving disputed ... Stay of demand - Demand raised u/s 201 (1) - HELD THAT:- We feel it proper to grant stay for six months from the date of this order or till the disposal of appeals whichever is earlier because we find that the payment already made by the assessee is about 52% of total outstanding disputed demand of tax and interest. As pointed out by the assessee that the date of hearing fixed at present for these appeals are 27/4/2021 and that one of the issues involved is about Secondment aspect is pending before special bench of the Tribunal. Based on the above we granted stay of outstanding demand for a period of 6 months or till the disposal of appeal whichever is earlier. Assessee shall not seek adjournment in course of hearing of these appeals without justifiable reasons and if the assessee does so, the stay granted as per this order shall stand vacated automatically. The revenue should also come prepared on this date of hearing and should not seek any adjournment without justifiable reasons. Stay petitions filed by the assessee are allowed. Issues:Extension of stay of disputed outstanding demand for multiple assessment years.Analysis:The assessee filed eight stay petitions seeking extension of stay for disputed outstanding demand for four assessment years. The demands were raised under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act. The total disputed demand of tax under section 201(1) was Rs. 809,238,661, while the disputed demand of interest under section 201(1A) amounted to Rs. 432,146,141, making the total outstanding demand Rs. 1,241,384,802. The assessee had already paid Rs. 6,48,276,959, which was 52% of the total outstanding demand of tax and interest, and 80% of the demand after excluding interest.During the hearing, the assessee argued that since they had already paid up to 80% of the tax demand excluding interest and more than 52% of the tax demand including interest, no further payment should be required for granting the stay. On the other hand, the revenue contended that since the demand was confirmed by the CIT (A), the assessee should be asked to pay at least 55% of the total outstanding disputed demand of tax and interest.After considering the submissions, the Tribunal decided to grant a stay for six months from the date of the order or until the disposal of appeals, whichever is earlier. This decision was based on the fact that the assessee had already paid a significant portion of the outstanding demand. The Tribunal also emphasized that the assessee should not seek adjournment without valid reasons during the appeal hearings. The revenue was also instructed to be prepared for the hearings and not seek adjournments without justifiable reasons.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed all eight stay petitions filed by the assessee, granting a stay of the outstanding demand for a period of six months or until the disposal of the appeals, subject to the conditions mentioned in the order.