Piruz Areez Khambatta,, Ahmedabad vs Assessee

Piruz Areez Khambatta Vs Assistant Commissioner of B/h Ellisbridge, Income Tax, Circle-5, Gymkhana, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad PAN: ABMPK 6324N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Revenue by : Shri Nimesh Yadav, Sr.D.R., Assessee(s) by : Shri P.F. Jain, A.R.

सुनवाई क तार ख/ Date of Hea ring : 02 /01/201 5 घोषणा क तार ख /Date of P ronouncement: 9/01/2015

आदेश /O R D E R

PER MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER

This Stay Petition has been filed on 26.12.2014. Through this Stay Petition, petitioner has requested to stay outstanding demand of Rs.1,60,65,000/- which was in respect of a penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of IT Act for Assessment Year 2002-03.

1.1 In this regard facts stated were as under:

"The quantum appeal of the assessee was allowed by CIT(appeals) but ITAT allowed the appeal of the revenue and restored the order of A.O. The appeal of the assessee against the order of the ITAT has been admitted by the High Court by order dated 23/10/2012 being Tax Appeal no.142 of 2012. Against the quantum demand stay order has been passed by the High Court in Civil application No.354 of 2012 on 04/12/2012 requiring the assessee to deposit 50% of demand in three equal monthly S.P. No.122/Ahd/2014 in ITA No.2304/Ahd/2013 Piruz Areez Khambatta Vs. ACIT, Circle-5, Ahmedabad For A.Y. 2002-03 -2- installment starting from 15/12/2012 and balance demand stand stayed. 50% demand as directed has been paid. There was no justification factually or legally to levy penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) for alleged furnishing of inaccurate particulars/concealment of particulars of income on the facts of the appellant as per the settled principles of the Law.

The earlier Stay was granted under stay petition No.15/And/2014 vide order dated 14/02/2014 which was extended and further on the hearing held on 26.08.2014, case was adjourned sinedie and Blocked for four months and stay was extended till 31.12.2014. Therefore this petition is made for further extension of stay."

2. From the sides of the petitioner, learned AR, Mr. P.F. Jain appeared and drawn our attention on an order of the ITAT Bench 'A' Ahmedabad dated 14.02.2014 [Stay Petition No.15/Ahd/2014 (ITAT No.2304/Ahd/2013) A.Y. 2002-03] wherein an early hearing was granted by fixing a date of hearing on 20th February, 2014 and the Revenue was directed to keep the recovery proceedings in abeyance till that date. Further, learned AR has informed that due to one reason or the other; the Appeal was not decided; rather on 26.08.2014 it was blocked for four months. At that time also it was directed not to initiate coercive action for the recovery of the outstanding demand upto 31.12.2014. Learned AR has therefore, pleaded that since the stay had lapsed on 31st of December, 2014; therefore, through this fresh petition it is again prayed to extend the stay against the recovery proceedings.

3. From the side of the Revenue, learned Sr.D.R., Shri Nimish Yadav appeared and objected that almost one year had already gone and the Appeal could not be decided therefore no further stay should be granted. Learned Sr.D.R. has also argued that the assessee has not demonstrated any economic hardship, therefore, do not deserve for stay of recovery proceedings.

S.P. No.122/Ahd/2014 in ITA No.2304/Ahd/2013 Piruz Areez Khambatta Vs. ACIT, Circle-5, Ahmedabad For A.Y. 2002-03 -3-

4. After hearing the submissions of both the sides and also considering the past history of the case that the Appeal is pending before the Hon'ble High Court in respect of quantum addition and that the Hon'ble High has vide Civil Application No.354 of 2012 order dated 4.12.2012 has directed the assessee to pay 50% of the demand and in compliance the assessee has already deposited a sum of Rs.1.25 crore, as stated before us, in respect of demand pertaining to the quantum addition, we hereby hold that this petitioner deserves for a further extension of the stay, as already granted, but upto the end of the month of next date of hearing, now fixed on 3rd of February, 2015 duly pronounced in the open Court as also noted by both the sides. We have granted an early hearing because we are of the opinion that this Appeal in respect of penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) can be decided under the circumstances and the facts as discussed hereinabove. Finally, we hereby directed the Revenue Department not to take any coercive action for the recovery of the outstanding demand upto the end of month of February, 2015. We order accordingly.

5. In the result, Stay Petition is allowed.

Sd/- Sd/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (MUKUL Kr. SHRAWAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 09/01/2015 Prabhat Kr. Kesarwani, Sr. P.S. आदेश क त ल प अ े षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. यथ / The Respondent. 3. संबं धत आयकर आयु त / Concerned CIT

4. आयकर आयु त(अपील) / The CIT(A)-III, Ahmedabad

5. वभागीय त न ध, आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad S.P. No.122/Ahd/2014 in ITA No.2304/Ahd/2013 Piruz Areez Khambatta Vs. ACIT, Circle-5, Ahmedabad For A.Y. 2002-03 -4-

6. गाड फाईल / Guard file.

आदेशानुस ार / BY ORDER,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad