- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Soundarrajan Parthasarathy, CHENNAI v. DCIT, CHENNAI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
"C" BENCH, CHENNAI
[BEFORE SHR A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND
G.PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER]
SP. No.55/Mds/2016
(in I.T.A. No.390/Mds/2016) (नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2011-2012) Shri. Soundarrajan Parthasarthy, B2, Nahar Deshna,
337, East Mada Street,
Thiruvanmiyur,
Chennai 600 041
[PAN AAEPP 4945K]
Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Non Corporate Circle 17(1) Chennai.
Petitioner Respondent Petitioner by : Shri. N.V. Balaji, Advocate Respondent by : Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT. सनुवाई क तारख/Date of Hearing : 26.02.2016 घोषणा क तारख /Date of
Pronouncement
: 26.02.2016
आदेश / O R D E R
PER G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
The assessee filed stay petition in ITA No.390/Mds/2016 for the assessment year 2011-2012 seeking stay of collection of disputed outstanding demand of <19,00,425/- including interest till the disposal of appeal.
1
2. The ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee in the return of income had considered Stock appreciation rights (SAR) as a long term capital asset and not as perquisite and further contented that Stock appreciation rights are not taxable. Further the assessee is having a prime facie good case on merits and prayed for stay of collection of disputed tax as the assessee is passing through financial crisis and does not have any liquidity to pay the disputed demand.
3. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative vehemently opposed for granting of stay.
4. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of lower authorities and stay petition filed by the assessee. Considering the facts and circumstances and the disputed issue is debatable, we direct the Registry to fix the case for hearing on 24.03.2016 and we hereby grant stay of collection of disputed demand of <19,00,425/- for a period of 180 days or till the disposal of appeal whichever is earlier and also direct the Assessing Officer to withdraw attachment of bank account and not to take any coercive steps. Further, we also make it clear that no notice for hearing would be served to both parties and
2
this order itself would be served as notice of hearing to both parties.
4. The stay petition filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on 26th February, 2016 at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/-
(ए. मोहन अलकंामणी)
(A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY)
लेखा सद य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
(जी. पवन कुमार)
(G. PAVAN KUMAR)
$या%यक सद य /JUDICIAL MEMBER चेनई/Chennai
दनांक/Dated: 26.2.2016.
KV
आदेश क त!ल#प अ&े#षत/Copy to:
1. Petitioner 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR. 6. Guard File.
3
Alert