IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH : CHENNAI, [BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER] S.P. No.196 Mds 2016 (in I.T.A. No. 2305 Mds 2016) Assessment year : 2013-2014 P.V. Anantha Raman, Vs. Income Tax Officer, No. C-94,67, Arcot Road, International Taxation I(1) AWHO Parameshwaran Chennai 600 034. Vihar, Arcot Road, Saligramam, Chennai 600 093 [PAN AFPPA 3770H] S.P. No.197 Mds 2016 in I.T.A. No. 2306 Mds 2016 Assessment year : 2013-2014 Bhavani Anantharaman, Income Tax Officer, No.112, Old No.81, International Taxation I(1) Bharani Vs. Chennai 600 034. Kamdar Nagar, 3rd Street, Kamdar Nagar, Chennai 600 034 [PAN AHMPB 1247M] Petitioner Respondent :- 2 -: S.P. Nos. 196 & 187 2016. Petitioner by : Sri. V. Swaminathan, C.A. Respondent by : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, IRS, JCIT. Date of Hearing : 16.09.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 16.09.2016 ORDER PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These are stay petitions filed by assessees who are husband and wife. assessees had sold flat bearing Door No.54, 5th Street, Luz Avenue, Mylapore, Chennai for consideration of 3,90,00,000 - to one Shri. S. Srinivasan and his wife Smt. Chitra Srinivasan. As per assessees, they had invested entire sale consideration for acquisition of residential house on which exemption u s.54F of Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as Act ) were claimed. ld. Assessing Officer denied claim for reason that assessees has not acquired new residential property which was in nature of flat, within time allowed u s.54 of Act. denial of claim resulted in demand of .20,63,573 - in hands of each of assessee. total tax and interest outstanding in case of assessee Shri. P.V. Anantha Raman including interest came to 27,78,560 - and 27,85,833 - in case of his wife Smt. Bhvani Anantharaman. :- 3 -: S.P. Nos. 196 & 187 2016. 2. appeals of assessees before ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) did not meet with any success. 3. Now before us, ld. Authorised Representative, in support of stay application submitted that assessee Shri. P.V. Anantha Raman had paid 4,16,800 - and assessee Smt. Bhavani Anantharaman had paid 4,17,900 - out of total demand. As per ld. Authorised Representative there was strong prime facie case since assessees were denied exemption u s.54F of Act, despite they having paid part of consideration for acquisition of new flat, before time period stipulated u s.54F of Act. Further, as per ld. Authorised Representative financial condition of assessees was bad. 4. Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that assessee could not bring out prime facie case for granting stay. 5. We heard rival contention. claim of assessee is that part of consideration for acquiring flat was paid within outer time limit of two years mentioned in Sec. 54F of Act. In our opinion, assessees has been able to bring out prime facie case. Financial difficulties are also faced by assessee. Considering :- 4 -: S.P. Nos. 196 & 187 2016. circumstances, we are of opinion that if assessees individually pay 5,00,000 - towards tax dues stay can be granted for balance amount. We also find that appeals have been posted for hearing on 08.11.2016. Therefore, subject to condition that each of assessee pay 5,00,000 - before end of this month, we grant stay for balance of dues for period of six months or date of hearing of appeals whichever is earlier. 6. In result, stay petitions are allowed on above lines. Order pronounced in open court on Friday, 16th day of September, 2016, at Chennai. Sd - Sd - (DUVVURU RL REDDY) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Chennai Dated:16th September, 2016 KV Copy to: 1. Appellant 3. ( ) CIT(A) 5. DR 2. Respondent 4. CIT 6. GF P.V. Anantha Raman v. Income-tax Officer, International Taxation I(1) Chennai