Conditional stay granted on Rs. 230.97 crore tax recovery for 180 days with Rs. 39 crore adjustment requirement

ITAT Delhi granted conditional stay on recovery of outstanding tax demand of Rs. 230.97 crores for 180 days or until appeal disposal, whichever is earlier. The stay is conditional upon immediate recovery and adjustment of Rs. 39 crores from assessee's refund or deposit by assessee if no refund is due. AO must take immediate steps for recovery/adjustment. Both parties must cooperate in providing relevant information regarding refund adjustments. The appeal was adjourned sine-die pending DIN issue resolution.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this stay application include:

• Whether the assessee is entitled to a stay on recovery of the outstanding demand of income-tax and interest aggregating Rs. 277.07 crores raised by the Revenue for Assessment Year 2018-19.
• Whether the assessee's claim regarding erroneous additions to income, specifically:
• The addition of Rs. 158.67 crores on account of difference in stock between closing stock of AY 2017-18 and opening stock of AY 2018-19, allegedly due to classification under Ind AS-105 and asset transfer to FMC India Private Limited;
• The addition of Rs. 10.85 crores as long-term capital gains, allegedly arising from multiple reporting of the same property sale transaction in SF-012 by the Sub-Registrar;
• The addition of interest under section 234A amounting to Rs. 7,09,96,544/- despite the return being filed within due date under section 139(1);
• Whether the Revenue's failure to adjust Rs. 39 crores refund against the outstanding demand, as directed by the Tribunal in earlier stay orders, affects the grant of stay.
• Validity and legality of the order passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and the intimation letter issued by CIT(DRP), particularly concerning the absence of a valid Documentation Identification Number (DIN) in compliance with CBDT Circular No. 19/2019.
• Appropriateness of extending the stay on recovery of demand subject to conditions including adjustment or deposit of Rs. 39 crores.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Entitlement to Stay on Recovery of Outstanding Demand

Legal Framework and Precedents: The Tribunal exercises discretionary power to grant stay of recovery under the Income Tax Act, balancing the assessee's prima facie case and the Revenue's interest. Earlier stay orders dated 09.09.2022, 17.03.2023, and 22.09.2023 had granted conditional stay on recovery subject to adjustment of Rs. 39 crores refund against the demand.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that the assessee has made out a prima facie case for conditional stay of recovery of the outstanding demand of income-tax and interest. The Tribunal refrained from commenting on the merits of the additions but acknowledged the assessee's submissions regarding the nature of disputed additions.

Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee's cooperation in appellate proceedings and the history of conditional stay granted earlier were noted. The failure of the Revenue to adjust Rs. 39 crores refund as directed was a significant factor.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal ordered that the stay would be granted on the same terms as previously, contingent on the adjustment or deposit of Rs. 39 crores towards the outstanding demand. Immediate steps were directed to be taken by the Assessing Officer (AO) for this purpose.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue submitted that the adjustment of Rs. 39 crores refund had not been done and urged continuation of stay on similar terms. The Tribunal agreed but emphasized the necessity of adjustment or deposit of Rs. 39 crores as a pre-condition.

Conclusion: Conditional stay of recovery of Rs. 230.97 crores (remaining after Rs. 39 crores adjustment) granted for 180 days or till disposal of appeal, whichever earlier.

Issue 2: Legality of Additions to Income

Legal Framework and Precedents: Additions to income are subject to scrutiny under relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act and accounting standards such as Ind AS-105. The principle of consistency in stock valuation and avoidance of double taxation is well established. The Supreme Court's judgment in CIT v. Brandix Mauritius Holdings Limited was cited regarding procedural compliance and validity of notices.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal refrained from adjudicating on the merits but recorded the assessee's contentions that:

• The Rs. 158.67 crores addition arose from a mere classification difference due to asset transfer and Ind AS-105 disclosure requirements, with no impact on profitability;
• The Rs. 10.85 crores addition was due to multiple reporting of the same property sale transaction thrice by the Sub-Registrar, leading to multiple taxation;
• The interest addition under section 234A was erroneous as the return was filed within the due date.

Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee submitted details of asset transfer, accounting treatment, and rectification application for interest addition. The DRP had directed verification of these claims, but the AO proceeded with additions.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal noted these claims but did not express opinion on their validity, as the stay application is concerned only with recovery, not merits.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue maintained the additions were justified. The Tribunal's approach was to maintain neutrality on merits pending appeal disposal.

Conclusion: No decision on merits; issues to be decided in main appeal.

Issue 3: Validity of DRP Order and Intimation Letter Concerning Documentation Identification Number (DIN)

Legal Framework and Precedents: Circular No. 19/2019 dated 14.08.2019 mandates issuance of valid DIN for notices/orders to be valid. The Supreme Court's Brandix judgment emphasized compliance with procedural requirements including DIN for validity of notices.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's challenge to the DRP order and intimation letter on grounds of absence of valid DIN, rendering them invalid and bad in law.

Key Evidence and Findings: The appeal was adjourned sine die due to the DIN issue, reflecting the procedural significance of this challenge.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal recognized that the procedural defect may impact the validity of the DRP order and intimation, thus affecting the assessment proceedings.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue sought adjournment citing the DIN issue, implicitly conceding its relevance.

Conclusion: The DIN issue is a live procedural challenge, leading to adjournment of appeal sine die.

Issue 4: Adjustment or Deposit of Rs. 39 Crores Refund Against Outstanding Demand

Legal Framework and Precedents: The Tribunal's earlier orders mandated adjustment of refund against outstanding demand as a condition precedent for stay. This principle ensures partial recovery while preserving assessee's rights during appeal.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized that despite earlier directions, the AO had not adjusted the Rs. 39 crores refund. It directed immediate steps for adjustment or, if no refund is due, deposit by the assessee.

Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee's cooperation and submissions regarding refund claims were noted.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal made the stay conditional on this adjustment/deposit, making the stay effective only upon compliance.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: Both parties agreed on the necessity of this condition, and the Tribunal enforced it.

Conclusion: Rs. 39 crores must be adjusted or deposited immediately to activate the stay.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Tribunal held:

"We are of the considered view that the assessee has made out a prima-facie case for conditional part stay of recovery of outstanding demand of income-tax and interest thereon, on the same terms and conditions, on which originally stay on recovery of outstanding demand was granted by ITAT vide orders dated 09.09.2022 which got extended on 17.03.2023 and 22.09.2023 i.e. subject to recovery/deposit of Rs. 39 crores against the outstanding demand of income-tax and interest thereon."

"The AO shall take immediate steps to recover and adjust Rs. 39 crores from the refund due to the assessee, otherwise the assessee is directed to deposit the said amount of Rs. 39 crores if no refund is due and payable to the assessee."

"Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice and without commenting on the merits of the issue, we stay recovery of remaining outstanding demand towards income-tax and interest thereon of Rs. 230.97 crores vide this order in stay application, for a period of 180 days or till the disposal of the appeal in ITA no. 1939/Del/2022, which ever is earlier, with the condition that Rs. 39 crores be adjusted/deposited towards the outstanding demand."

"The appeal was adjourned sine-die as the issue involved in this appeal concerns issue of DIN, and the same shall continue to be so, till application for fixation of hearing is moved."

Core principles established include:

• Conditional stay of recovery can be granted on prima facie case, subject to partial recovery or deposit to protect Revenue's interest.
• Procedural compliance, specifically issuance of valid DIN as per CBDT Circular, is critical for validity of DRP orders and intimations.
• The Tribunal will refrain from commenting on merits in stay proceedings, focusing on procedural and prima facie considerations.
• Non-compliance with Tribunal's directions (such as refund adjustment) can affect the efficacy of stay orders.

Final determinations on each issue are:

• Stay on recovery of Rs. 230.97 crores granted conditionally for 180 days or till appeal disposal.
• Rs. 39 crores refund to be adjusted or deposited immediately; stay effective only thereafter.
• Merits of disputed additions remain undecided and reserved for appeal disposal.
• DIN issue remains a procedural impediment, causing adjournment sine die.

---