SPORTING PASTIME INDIA LTD. Vs. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, REPRESENTING INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed by a limited company, challenging the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal' for brevity) dtd. 10/2/2020, rejecting the Stay Petition filed by the petitioner/assessee, praying for Stay of the Demand and not to initiate any coercive steps pursuant to the assessment order dtd. 28/12/2018 under Sec. 143(3) read with Sec. 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity)

(2.) Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/assessee, would vehemently contend that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that as per the directions issued by the High Court of Delhi in its order dtd. 17/1/2013 in Company Petition No.292 of 2004 etc., as well as in the subsequent order dtd. 8/10/2018, the entire deposit amount together with the interest thereon belong to and had to be passed on to Canara Bank, New Delhi and hence no part of the money belonged to the petitioner/assessee. Further, it is contended that the petitioner/assessee had no right to receive either the Principal or the interest thereon in view of the orders passed passed by the High Court of Delhi. Further, without prejudice to the said contention, it is argued that the petitioner/assessee had to pass on the entire amount of the interest to Canara Bank, New Delhi, and the amount is a loss to the petitioner/assessee and hence, no taxable income accrues in the hands of the petitioner/assessee. Further, it is submitted that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that what was passed on to Canara Bank, New Delhi, was the interest accrued on the monies, which belonged to them in the first place and therefore, the payment of the interest amount to Canara Bank cannot be considered as penalty for violation of law, but reduced from the interest income. Further, the Tribunal did not consider the balance of convenience, would require that the levy of tax and interest should be stayed because no income had accrued or reached the petitioner/assessee.

(3.) In the light of the above submission, the learned counsels would state that the Tribunal ought to have granted an interim order, more particularly, when the petitioner/assessee has paid a sum of Rs.87,00,000.00 as against the demand of Rs.3.63 crores, which will be nearly 25% and the Tribunal should have considered the said facts and granted an interim order.