Late Smt. Rukmani Rathi Through L/H Shri ... vs Assessee
- CitationI.T.A. No.147/LKW/2015)
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal may grant a stay of demand where, on a prima facie view, the demand appears to be unsustainable; a demand raised under section 50C of the Act without referring the valuation question to the Departmental Valuation Officer is, on the facts before it, such a demand, and the assessee is therefore entitled to a stay pending disposal of the appeal, subject to automatic vacation if adjournments are sought without valid reason.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Appellant by Shri Abhinav Mehrotra, Advocate Respondent by Shri Puneet Kumar, D. R. Date of hearing 27/03/2015 Date of pronouncement 16/04/2015
ORDER PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M.
This Stay Petition is filed by the assessee requesting for stay of outstanding demand of Rs.3,52,853/-. Learned A.R. of the assessee placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court rendered in the case of L. G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. in Writ Tax No. 367 of 2012 dated 22/03/2012, copy of which is available on page No. 21 to 25 of the paper book. It was submitted that in this case, it was held by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court that if on a cursory glance, it appears that the demand raised has no leg to stand, it would be undesirable to require the assessee to pay full or substantive part of the demand. He submitted that in the present case also, the demand raised has no leg to stand because the demand was raised by invoking the provisions of section 50C of the Act without referring the matter to D.V.O. and therefore, the present demand is not sustainable.
2 He also submitted that as per a judgment of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, it was held that even if no specific request was raised by the assessee before the Assessing Officer to refer the matter to D.V.O., the Assessing Officer should have referred the matter to D.V.O. and therefore, the present demand raised u/s 50C without referring the matter to D.V.O. is not sustainable.
2. Learned D.R. of the Revenue submitted that stay should not be granted.
3. We have considered the rival submissions. We find force in the submissions of Learned A.R. of the assessee that in the facts of the present case, the assessee deserves granting of stay because the demand was raised u/s 50C of the Act without referring the matter to D.V.O. and therefore, we grant stay to the assessee for the outstanding demand for a period of six months or till the disposal of this appeal, whichever is earlier. The appeal is fixed for hearing on 30/04/2015. We would like to make it clear that if the assessee seeks adjournment during the course of hearing of this appeal without valid reasons, the stay should get vacated automatically.
4. In the result, the Stay Petition of the assessee stands allowed.
(Order was pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page)
Sd/. Sd/.
(SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (A. K. GARODIA) Judicial Member Accountant Member
Dated:16/04/2015 *C.L.Singh
Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., Lucknow Asstt. Registrar
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free