2018 (2) TMI 1284

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2,45,08,305/- raised by the Income Tax Department. 2. The reasons assigned by the learned Tribunal in its impugned order as contained in para Nos.2, 5 and 9 of the said order are quoted below for ready reference: "2. At the outset Bench asked the ld. AR, whether the assessee is willing to pay 51 crores in addition to Rs. 70 crores already paid i.e. 50% of the total tax demand of Rs. 242.45 crore. The ld. AR declined and submitted that the application be decided on merit by the Bench. Accordingly we are proceeding to decide the stay application on Merit. 5.  We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The AO has firstly raised the demand u/s.14A as the assessee was having dividend income from the investm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....xpediency' as in the case of SA Builders fails in this case. As the DRP has examined the issue of commercial expediency and held that the test of commercial expediency as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.A. Builders, is not applicable as mentioned herein above. Therefore, once the finding of fact has concurrently been given against the assessee by the lower authorities, we do not find that the assessee was able to make out a prima facie case in its favour. 9. Thus having regard to the above legal position, the assessee company had not made out a case for stay of the demand. In the circumstances, the stay petition filed by the assessee is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. It is made clear that by dismissing the ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed and filed such writ petitions. Though the same yardstick and parameters applicable to Government Departments to become a litigant in constitutional Courts cannot be perhaps applied with same rigour to the assessees, but at the same time the fact remains that the impugned order before this Court is nonetheless remains an interlocutory order passed by the regular Appellate Authority under the Act, which is still seized of the appeal to be heard on its own merits. Therefore, any observations made by the learned Tribunal in the interlocutory order about the coverage of the controversy by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.A. Builders Ltd. case (supra) or otherwise, does not finally express the view of the said Tribunal and such o....