Purushothamdas (Huf), Hyderabad vs Assessee

Stay Application No.3/Hyd/2015 (in ITA No.98/Hyd/2015) : Assessment year 2008-09

M/s. Purushothamdas- (HUF), V/s. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad Ward 8(2), Hyderabad

(PAN - AADHP 9652 G)

(Applicant) (Respondent)

Applicant by : Shri A.V.Raghuram Respondent by : Shri Rajat Mitra DR

Date of Hearing 13.02.2015 Date of Pronouncement 13.02.2015

ORDER

Per D.Manmohan, Vice President :

By this application, assessee seeks stay on collection of outstanding demand of Rs.14,78,490 pending disposal of the appeal, and also requested for the posting of the appeal out of turn.

2. Facts necessary for the disposal of this application are stated in brief : The assessee is a Hindu Undivided Family. It filed its return of income through e-filing mode on 30.9.2008. In the e- return, the amount of capital gain was declared twice. As could be noticed form the copy of the return, a sum of Rs.33,89,715 was repeated twice under the head 'Capital Gains' towards short term capital gains, which resulted in declaring capital gains of Rs.67,79,430 as against Rs.33,89,715. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment accordingly. Assessee moved a petition 2 Stay Appln. No.3/Hyd/2015 (in ITA No.98/Hyd/2015) M/s. Purushothamdas, Hyderabad

under S.154 of the Act, seeking rectification of the assessment order on the ground that it is a pure typographical mistake of declaring the capital gains twice, which needs to be rectified. The Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) were of the opinion that rectification is not permissible, since the assessee declared income which was eventually accepted.

3. Learned counsel adverted our attention to the relevant papers and submitted that the assessee has a strong prima facie case and the balance of convenience is in favour of the assessee and it is a fit case for grant of absolute stay.

4. On the other hand, the Learned Departmental Representative submitted that in the e-return mode no annexures need to be filed, and the Assessing Officer has no wherewithal to know whether the assessee has declared capital gains twice or not; there could be two properties wherein identical capital gains must have been earned and in the peculiar circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer committed a mistake apparent from record. He thus submitted that the assessee has no prima facie case on merits.

5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. Neither in the order passed under S.154 nor in the order passed by the CIT(A), there was any mention about additional capital gains of Rs.33,89,715 or income to that extent from any other sources. Such being the case, the assessee can be said to be having a strong prima facie case. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material on record. We, therefore, deem it fair and reasonable to grant ad-interim stay on the collection of outstanding demand, and direct the Registry to post 3 Stay Appln. No.3/Hyd/2015 (in ITA No.98/Hyd/2015) M/s. Purushothamdas, Hyderabad

the appeal for final hearing on 9.3.2015. If the assessee seeks adjournment on that date, the stay granted hereby shall stand automatically vacated. With these observations, the stay application filed by the assessee is allowed.

6. In the result, Stay Application is allowed to the extent indicated above.

Pronounced accordingly at the conclusion of hearing on this application on 13.2.2015.

Sd/- Sd/-

(P.M.Jagtap) (D.Manmohan) Accountant Member Vice President

Dt/- 13th February, 2015 Copy forwarded to:

1. M/s. Purushothamdas- (HUF), 21-2-366, Lad Bazaar, Hyderabad

2. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(4), Hyderabad

3. Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) IV, Hyderabad

4. Commissioner of Income-tax III Hyderabad

5. Departmental Representative, ITAT, Hyderabad. B.V.S