AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.R Baskaran, Member (A)
The assessee has filed this stay application seeking stay of outstanding demand of Rs.110.71 crores, which consisted of tax demand of Rs.71.41 crores and interest demand of Rs.39.30 crores for assessment year 2014-15.
The Ld Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the AO had made identical additions in the earlier years and most of the issues have been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal. Accordingly he submitted that the tax demand shall go down drastically, if the ratio of decisions rendered by the Tribunal is applied in this year. He further submitted that the revenue has given effect to the order passed by Tribunal for assessment year 2007-08 and the same has resulted in a refund of Rs.80.31 crores. He further submitted that the Assessing officer has to pass orders to give effect to the orders of the Tribunal for other years also and the same would result in more refunds. Accordingly the Ld A.R submitted that the refund due to the assessee is more than the outstanding tax demand and accordingly prayed for complete stay of outstanding demand.
The Ld A.R further submitted that the assessing officer, in the order passed for AY 2007-08 in order to give effect to the order of the Tribunal has mentioned that entire refund amount shall be adjusted against outstanding tax demand. The Ld A.R placed his reliance on the following case laws and contended that the assessing officer should adjust the refund only against the tax demand, which was not stayed.
ACIT vs. Sundaram Asset Management Co. Ltd (2015)(62 taxmann.com 339)(Mad)
Maruti Suzuki Ltd vs. DCIT (2011)(16 taxmann.com 40)(Delhi) Accordingly he prayed that suitable direction may be given to the assessing officer in this regard.
The Ld D.R submitted that the assessing officer has already stated in the order that the refund amount shall be adjusted against the outstanding demand. Accordingly she prayed that the issue of adjustment may be left to the wisdom of the assessing officer.
We heard rival contentions and perused the record. We notice that the assessing officer has already determined refund amount of Rs.80.31crores in the order passed for assessment year to give effect to the order of the Tribunal. The above said refund amount is more than the tax portion of the demand outstanding for the year under consideration. Hence, on consideration of this fact alone, we are of the view that the balance of convenience is in favour of granting complete stay to the assessee. Accordingly we grant stay of outstanding demand for a period of six months from the date of this order or till the date of disposal of appeal, whichever period expires earlier. We made it clear that we do not put any bar on the power of AO to adjust refund against outstanding demand. With regard to the prayer of the assessee that the entire refund should not be adjusted against the outstanding demand, we direct the assessee to approach the tax authorities with its prayer.
The Ld A.R submitted that the appeal is posted for hearing in the month of June, 2019. Since we have granted complete stay, we direct the assessee not to seek adjournment without reasonable cause, failing which the present stay order is subjected to review by the division bench hearing the appeal.
Accordingly, the stay application of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 10th May, 2019.