TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 1022X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the assessee , he pleaded that assessee s financial condition is very weak and it cannot service disputed demand. We, therefore, considering fact that assessee is not willing to pay any amount towards disputed demand, reject the stay application filed by assessee. However, in order to give early hearing to assessee, appeal filed by assessee is posted for out of turn hearing on 09.02.2021. - Stay Petition No.191/Chny/2020 [In ITA No.916/Chny/2020] - - - Dated:- 8-1-2021 - Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member And Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member For the Petitioner : Mr.S.Saravana Kumar For the Respondent : Ms.R.Anita, JCIT ORDER PER G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The assessee has filed present stay a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been reproduced as under:- 1. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act after making an addition of ₹ 32,52,14,055/.. as against the returned income of N IL resulting in the tax demand of ₹ 14,41,78,220/-. The Assessing Officer in his order denied the exemption u/s 11 citing that Return of Income as specified u/s 139(1) was not filed within due date of filing. The Assessing Officer treating he Advance made by the trust to the independent professional as funds advanced as funds advanced to the a person as defined u/s 13(3)(cc) r.w.s 13](2)(a) and cited this also as a reason for denial of exemption u/s 11. 2. The ACIT has disallowed he entire exempted income of Trust. i.e 32,52,14,055/- by stati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... total income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the above order of Assessing Officer. Trust has filed an Appeal before CIT Appeals on 03.02.2020 vide TA No.298/19-20. 5. The assessee also relies upon (he observations of Hon ble High Court, Madras in the case of Samns Juke Box v. ACIT (2018) 409 ITR 33/ 257 TAXMANN 37 (Mad) (HC). The Madras High Court in the case of Samms Juke Box held on 28.06.2018 against the Income Tax Department for the assessment year 2015-16 and asked the Assessing Officers should consider genuine difficulties of tax payers while allowing a stay proceeding in tax disputes and should not always seek (he mandated as per the statute. 6. Further, the assessee relies on Where the income determined oh assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her or high pitched. Further, it has been held that in the case of Pradeep Ratanshi vs. Asst. CIT (1996) 221 Ilk 502 (Ker). The stay of demands clearly shows that the to two circulars are only in addition to Instruction No 96 and not in supersession of what has been approved by the informal consyulative Consultative Committee of Parliament and the then deputy Prime Minister/finance minister That instruction is still valid and has not been withdrawn so far. The recovery proceedings initiated against the assessee shall remain stayed till the disposal of stay petition filed by him. 8. Further, Whether it is fit case for stay has to be seen in the context of Instruction No. 1914 dated 02-02-1993 wherein which under para 2, C guidelin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same issue with the above grounds for the Assessment Year 2016-17 and High court has granted stay and paid an amount of ₹ 2,20,00,000/- Demanding 10% by the department for each year will defeat very purpose of CBDT Instruction No.1914, where lie issue under consideration was same for all the years. Here, sin] hr / same issue was pending for Assessment year 2016-17. 2013-14 20 12-13 before Hon ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and demanding 20% for the each every assessment year (Assessment year 2017-18) was unjustifiable. 11. Considering the above facts, Instructions of CBDT, high pitched assessment and Judgements of various courts, we pray his Honble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to stay the recovery of entire amount of dispu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
