2013 (2) TMI 207

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dated 11.01.2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in Stay No.310/Del/2012 in ITA No.6021/Del/2012 pertaining to the assessment year 2008-09.   2. The petitioner sought stay of demand of Rs.373.68 crores. The assessing officer acceded to the request of the assessee only to this extent that no coercive measures would be taken in respect of Rs.150.92 crores which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner was on the basis of covered issues. Mr Ganesh, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that a sum of Rs.166.77 crores, i.e., about 75% of the amount of Rs.222.76 crores (i.e., Rs.373.68 crores - Rs.150.92 crores) have already been adjusted by the revenue as against refund due to the petiti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sit only about 22% of the demand. In contrast, in the present year i.e. the assessment year 2008-09 the total demand is of Rs.373.68 crores out of which approximately an amount of Rs.150 crores is on account of covered issues for which the assessing officer himself had ordered that no coercive measures for recovery of the same would be taken although he had made adjustment to the said amount. The balance amount would be Rs.222.76 crores. A further sum of Rs.166.75 crores is to be reduced on account of refunds, both granted and under process. We are thus left with an amount of Rs.56 crores which is the very amount which the Tribunal has required the assessee to deposit by 31.1.2013. 6. It is thus the case of the petitioner that while in t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssessing officer to the extent that while the assessing officer had merely provided that no coercive measures for recovery be undertaken but the amounts could be recovered by way of adjusting refunds, the Tribunal on the other hand has directed that no such adjustment could be made as against the covered issues. 9. Since the Tribunal in the earlier years on the very same issue has conclusively indicated in the order dated 03.02.2012 that the petitioner had a prima facie case, we feel that the Tribunal in the present case ought to have also held accordingly. If that were to be the position, then the Tribunal ought not to have deviated from the practice adopted in the previous year by requiring the petitioner to make a deposit of the said ....