Ashutosh P. Bhatt, vs Assessee

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A " BENCH, MUMBAI सव ी आई.पी.बंसल, या यक सद य. एवं ी राजे , लेखा सद य के सम BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JM AND RAJENDRA, AM S.A.NO.157/MUM/2015 (Arising out of I TA No.1526/Mum/2015,A.Y.2007-08) Ashutosh P. Bhatt बनाम/ ADIT (I T) 1(1), 701, Pooja, 155-A, S.V.Road, Mumbai. Vs. Khar (West), Mumbai - 400 052

थायी ले खा सं . /जीआइआर सं . /PAN/GIR No. : AFDPB1445G (अपीलाथ /Appellant) .. ( यथ / Respondent)

Applicant by Shri R.Muralidhar Respondent by Shri Asghar Zain सनु वाई क" तार$ख / Date of Hearing : 22/05/2015 घोषणा क" तार$ख /Date of Pronouncement : 22/05/2015 आदे श / O R D E R

PER I.P.BANSAL, J.M:

Vide Stay Application filed as above the assessee is seeking stay of outstanding demand of Rs.70,35,867/-, which represents levy of concealment penalty @200%.

2. It is the case of the assessee that he is a non-resident, therefore, income earned by him outside India was not taxable. However, assessee suo-moto offered the peak balance in the account with HSBC Bank just to buy peace of mind. Therefore, it is the case of the assessee that penalty could not be levied as the disclosure was voluntary and made despite the fact that income was not taxable in India. It is also the case of the assessee that in any case penalty has been levied @200% and at the worst the same cannot be levied beyond 100%, even if the pleading of the assessee are not accepted on merits.

3. It may also be mentioned here that during the course of hearing Ld. AR was required to furnish the documents relating to financial position of 2 S.A.NO.157/MUM/2015

the assessee and Ld. AR fairly submitted that he is not in a position to give the particulars regarding financial position of the assessee except bank statement.

4. In these facts and circumstances, the stay application filed by the assessee was heard.

5. We have heard both the parties and their contentions have carefully been considered. Since financial position could not be submitted by Ld. AR, we do not consider that it is a fit case where blanket stay can be given to the assessee. However, considering the fact that penalty has been levied @200% and also the fact that assessee has not been able to furnish documentary evidence regarding financial status of the assessee, we are of the opinion that it would meet the interest of justice if the stay is granted subject to payment of Rs.20.00 lacs in two installments of Rs.10.00 lacs each. Ld. AR agreed to pay this amount in two installments. The first installment of Rs.10.00 lacs to be paid on or before 30/6/2015 and second installment of Rs.10.00 lacs to be paid on or before 31/07/2015. Subject to making these payments the appeal filed by the assessee would be heard on 09/09/2015. The due date of the installments of payment and fixing of the hearing of the impugned appeal were duly noted by Ld. AR waiving his right to receive the notice of hearing for 09/09/2015. The stay is granted for a period of six months from the date of this order or till the disposal of the appeal, whichever is earlier.

6. In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is considered to be allowed in the manner aforesaid.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22/05/2015 आदे श क" घोषणा खल ु े यायालय म* +दनांकः 22/05/2015 को क" गई ।

राजे (RAJENDRA) आई.पी.बंसल (I.P.BANSAL) लेखा सद य /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER या यक सद य /JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; +दनांक Dated 22/05/2015 3 S.A.NO.157/MUM/2015

आदे श क त ल!प अ"े!षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :

1. अपीलाथ / The Applicant

2. यथ / The Respondent.

3. आयकर आय/ ु त(अपील) / The CIT(A)-

4. आयकर आय/ ु त / CIT

5. 0वभागीय त न2ध, आयकर अपील$य अ2धकरण, मब ंु ई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai

6. गाड फाईल / Guard file.

आदे शानस ु ार/ BY ORDER, स या0पत त //True Copy// उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, मबुं ई / ITAT, Mumbai व. न.स.Vm , Sr. PS