The Tax Publishers2021 TaxPub(DT) 0616 (Chen-Trib)

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 220

Where assessee had not paid any amount towards outstanding demand created by AO and as per the amended provisions of section 254 (2A), before granting any stay, assessee was required to deposit at least 20% of disputed tax and when this provision was apprised to AR for assessee, he pleaded that assessee's financial condition was very weak and it cannot service disputed demand. In order to give early hearing to assessee, appeal filed by assessee was posted for out of turn hearing on 9-2-2021.

Recovery - Stay of demand - Recovery proceedings --Exemption under section 11 denied - Assessee had violated provisions of section 13(3) read with section 13(2)(a)

Assessee was claiming exemption under section 11. AO denied benefit of exemption under section 11 on the ground that assessee had violated provisions of section 13(3) read with section 13(2)(a) for the reason that return required to be filed under section 139(1) was not filed within the due date for filing return of income. Assessee submitted that AO created high-pitched demand only on technical grounds for not filing return of income within the due date specified under section 139(1) ignoring reasons given by assessee for delay in filing of return. Further, AO had created high pitched demand which assessee is finding difficult to service due to bad financial condition on account of ongoing pandemic situation . Therefore, disputed demand might be stayed. Held: Before granting stay, assessee was required to pay at least 20% of disputed demand. Assessee had not paid any amount towards outstanding demand created by AO. As per the amended provisions of section 254 (2A), before granting any stay, assessee was required to deposit at least 20% of disputed tax. When this provision was apprised to AR for assessee, he pleaded that assessee's financial condition was very weak and it cannot service disputed demand. Therefore, considering fact that assessee was not willing to pay any amount towards disputed demand, the stay application filed by assessee was rejected. However, in order to give early hearing to assessee, appeal filed by assessee was posted for out of turn hearing on 9-2-2021 and assessee shall co-operate for disposal of appeal.

Relied:Samms Juke Box v. Asstt. CIT (2018) 409 ITR 33 (Mad-HC) : (2018) 257 Taxmann 37 (Mad-HC) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 4063 (Mad-HC), Soul v. Dy. CIT (2003) 173 Taxman 468 (Del-HC) : 2010 TaxPub(DT) 164 (Del-HC) and Valvoline Cummins Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2008) 307 ITR 103 (Del) : 2008 TaxPub(DT) 2033 (Del-HC). Maharana Shri Bhagwat Singhji of Mewar (Late His Highness) v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal & Ors. (1997) 223 ITR 192 (Raj) : 1997 TaxPub(DT) 0384 (Raj-HC), Pradeep Ratanshi v. Asstt. CIT & Ors. (1996) 221 ITR 502 (Ker) : 1996 TaxPub(DT) 0980 (Ker-HC)

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : Appeal to be listed.

A.Y. : 2017-18



IN THE ITAT, CHENNAI BENCH

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

TaxPublishers.in

'Kedarnath', 7, Avadh Vihar, Near Nirali Dhani,

Chopasni Road

Jodhpur - 342 008 (Rajasthan) INDIA

Phones : 9785602619 (11 am - 5 pm)

E-Mail : mail@taxpublishers.in / mail.taxpublishers@gmail.com