Charu Agarwal vs DCIT

P.P. Bhatt, J

This Stay Application u/s 35A of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 has been preferred by the assessee, seeking stay of balance outstanding demand of Rs. 28,00,833/-. He stated that Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal vide order dated 27.5.2020 wherein he has held that since the assessee has sold land and not a house, she is not entitled to exemption u/s. 54 of the Act, but at the same time has allowed the exemption u/s. 54F restricting the cost of acquisition at Rs. 30,48,998/- as against Rs. 74,50,516/- claimed. The tax liability after giving effect to the Ld. CIT(A)'s order is Rs. 28,00,833/-. It was further submitted that against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), an appeal has been filed on 6.7.2020 before the Hon'ble Tribunal which is being listed in 'D' Bench and no application for stay of demand has been made to the revenue authorities. It was further submitted that assessee has not deposited any part of the demand so raised after the appeal effect. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that there is no dispute with respect to the inheritance, acquisition, ownership and selling of the property by the assessee and the dispute is with respect to the deduction claimed under section 54 as allowable to the assessee; with respect to the cost of acquisition claimed by the assessee; with respect to the cost of improvement and alternatively the deduction under section 54F is allowable. To support his arguments, he has reiterated the reasons for seeking the stay as mentioned at page no. 10 to 24 of the stay application. It was further submitted that assessee has strong case both on facts as well as on merits and the balance of convenience is in favour of the assessee. It was further submitted that the applicant is not in a position to offer any security. Therefore, it was requested that the demand so created amounting to Rs. 28,00,833/- may kindly be stayed till the disposal of the appeal and the main appeal of the assessee may kindly be fixed at the earliest possible and may be decided. Assessee A.R. has also filed an affidavit in support of the stay application.

On the contrary, Ld. DR opposed the request for grant of stay made by the Ld. counsel for the assessee, but did not oppose the request for grant of early hearing in the main appeal.

We have heard both the parties and perused the records available with us, especially the orders of the authorities below. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the assessee has partly established the prima facie case in its favour and also balance of convenience is also in its favour for grant of conditional stay on the balance outstanding demand in dispute. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we grant Stay on the outstanding demand of dispute, subject to the condition that 20% of the balance outstanding demand in dispute should be paid by the assessee on or before 31.03.2021. This conditional stay is valid for the period of 180 days or till the disposal of the main appeal, whichever occurs first. The request for early hearing is also granted and Registry is directed to fix the main appeal for hearing on 17.05.2021 before the regular bench. The copy of this Order be given to both the parties DASTI.

In the result, the Assessee's Stay Application stands disposed off, as aforesaid.

Order pronounced in the presence of both the parties on conclusion of virtual hearing on 19-03-2021.