TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (12) TMI 15
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Petitioner is a statutory authority, established under the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1974, (the MMRDA Act). The Petitioner has been set up inter alia for the purpose of planning, coordinating and supervising the development of the Mumbai Metropolitan Region. In terms of Section 40 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) by a notification dated 7th March, 1977, the Petitioner was appointed as a Special Planning Authority in place of CIDCO for the notified areas including 'Bandra Kurla Complex'. 4. The Petitioner has been claiming since Assessment Year 200304, exemption under Section 11 of the Act, from payment of Income taxes. The Assessing Officer has been consistently denying the claim for exemption. However, in appeal, the CIT(A) has consistently allowed the appeals holding that the Petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 11 of the Act in respect of Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2009-10. The appeals filed by the Revenue from the orders of the CIT(A) except for Assessment Year 200607, are pending with the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(Tribunal). The Appeal for Assessment Year 200607 has been rejected by the Tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ebruary 2014, the Petitioner filed an appeal to the CIT(A). Pending the disposal of its appeal, the Petitioner moved an application before the Assessing Officer under Section 220(6) of the Act, seeking a stay of the demand of Rs. 961.92 Crores for the Assessment Year 2011-12 pending the disposal of the appeal by the CIT(A). On 4th June, 2014, the Assessing Officer rejected the Petitioner's application for stay on the following grounds: (i) that no financial hardship has been pleaded by the Petitioner; (ii) mere filing of an appeal to CIT(A) does not warrant a stay; and (iii) issues raised in the stay application are already considered while passing the assessment order dated 28th February, 2014. 8. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed a further application dated 19th June, 2014 before the Director in his administrative capacity for stay of demand till the disposal of the appeal by the CIT(A). The Petitioner placed reliance upon the decision of the Tribunal in CIDCO(supra). The Director by the impugned order dated 18th August 2014 rejected the Petitioner's application for stay inter alia on the ground that the decision of the Tribunal in CIDCO(supra) would not a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onsideration stands concluded by a decision of an higher forum or where the order appealed against is in breach of Natural Justice or the view taken in the order being appealed against is contrary to what has been held in the preceding previous years ( even if issue pending before higher forum ) without there being a material change in facts or law, stay should normally be granted; (c) If not, whether looking to the questions involved in appeal, keeping in view the likelihood of success in appeal what part of the demand the whole (in case issue covered against the applicant by a decision of higher forum) or part of it and must be justified by short reasons in the order disposing of the stay application;. (c) Lack of financial hardship would not be a sole ground to direct deposit/payment of the demands if the assessee/applicant has a strong arguable case on merits; (d) In cases where the assessee/applicant relies upon financial difficulties, the authority concerned should briefly indicate whether the assessee is financially sound and viable to deposit the amount or the apprehension of the revenue of non recovery later. Thus warranting deposit. This of course, if the case is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ray what is the reason for the Act to provide for a stay of demand by an Assessing officer till the disposal of the appeal by the CIT(A). This is also contrary to the guidelines laid down in UTI Mutual Funds (345 ITR 71) where the Court held that 'though the Assessing Officer had made an assessment, he must objectively decide the application for stay considering that an appeal lies against his order.....' The impugned order proceeds on the basis that the petitioner is asking for stay merely because they have filed an appeal. This is belied if one merely looks at the application for stay dated 4 April 2014 which is a fourteen page application urging various grounds in support of their application for stay. Therefore, at one stage, we were considering to restore the issue for further consideration by the Assessing Officer. However, we find that the Director has in the impugned order dated 18 August, 2014 dealt with the issues and in any event the issue prima facie for the purposes of stay, appears to be covered in favour of the Petitioner by the order of the Tribunal in the case of CIDCO(supra). 13. We find that the Petitioner's submission before the authorities was th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eady been recovered by the department by way of adjusting the refund for other assessment years as indicated above. The Petitioner has thus already paid almost about 23% of the total tax demand. We are informed that the appeal of the petitioner for the A. Y. 2010-11 is already fixed for hearing before the CIT(Appeals) on 21 November 2013, when these issues would be considered in depth and decided. Therefore in the present facts, the interest of justice would be served if the demand for the balance amount of Rs. 656.14 Crores is stayed." It is axiomatic in law that a decision has to be read in the context of the facts which gave rise to it. A decision of a Court is not statute. The 25% of deposit out of the total tax demand was ordered by this Court in its order dated 18 November 2013 (W. P. (L) No.2158 of 2013) in the context of the fact that the Petitioner had not raised the issue of being anagent of the Government before the Assessing Officer and thus, the Assessing Officer had no occasion to examine the same. In the present case, admittedly, the Petitioner has raised the issue of it being an agent of the Government of the Maharashtra and its income not being taxable in view o....