M/S. Prithvi Consultants Pvt. Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOACIVIL APPLICATION NO. 86 OF 2016INTAX APPEAL NO. 39 OF 2016 M/S. PRITHVI CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD., VersusDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX., ... Applicant ... Respondent Mr. Shivan Desai, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Asha Desai, Advocate for the respondent. -Coram:F. M. REIS &NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ.-Date:18th July, 2016 P.C. Heard Mr. Shivan Desai, learned counsel appearing for theapplicant and Ms. Asha Desai, learned counsel appaering for therespondent. 2. This is an application to stay the operation of the impugneddemand dated 03.02.2016 to the extent of a sum of Rs.8,29,34,446/-together with interest thereon. It is not disputed that the subjectdemand is in respect of a large property surveyed under No.20/1 ofVillage Bainguinim which consists of two plots, plot no.1admeasuring an area of 13,178 square metres and plot no.2admeasurings an area of 37,500 square metres. 3. Mr. Desai, learned counsel appearing for the applicant has pointed out that in the meanwhile the applicant has already disposedof plot no.1 of the said property admeasuring an area of 13,178square metres and for such transaction, the applicant has deposited asum of Rs.97,90,284/- towards the payment of capital gains. Thelearned counsel further points out that in the appeal preferred by theapplicant before the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the stayof operation of the subject demand was granted subject to deposit ofRs.25,00,000/-. The learned counsel as such points out that as theapplicant has a good case on merits as according to him the applicanthas not received any consideration based on the subject transaction,the operation of the impugned demand be accordingly stayed. 4. Ms. Asha Desai, learned counsel appearing for the respondentopposes the said relief and inter-alia points out that the applicant bedirected to deposit 50% of the amount so demanded. 5. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel andwe have also gone through the records. The undisputed facts referredto herein above clearly suggest that the claim of Rs.8,29,34,446/- wasalso in connection with the said plot no.1. The respondent have notdisputed that on account of the sale of the plot no.1 the applicant hasdeposited a sum of Rs.97,90,284/- towards capital gains. Apart fromthat, the applicant states that as far as the larger plot no.2 admeasuring an area of 37500 square metres is concerned, in case theapplicant disposes such property, the applicant shall deposit therequisite capital gains in accordance with law. In suchcircumstances, we find that we would have to ensure that therespondents are protected with regard to the subject demand duringthe pendency of the above appeal. Hence, the operation of theimpugned demand is stayed subject to the following conditions : (i) The applicant shall deposit a further sum of Rs.50,00,000/-with the Principal CIT, Panaji, within four weeks from today. (ii) The applicant shall not dispose of plot no.2 admeasuring anarea of 37,500 square metres or create any third party right thereinwithout seeking permission of this Court until further orders. (iii) The application stands disposed of accordingly. (iv) Liberty to apply. at* NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, J. F. M. REIS, J.