1 S.P. Nos. 42 & 43/KOL/2016 (arising out of ITA Nos. 1551 & 1552/KOL/2016) Assessment Years: 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA C BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Accountant Member and Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Judicial Member S.P. Nos. 42 & 43/KOL./2016 (in I.T.A. Nos. 1551 & 1552/KOL./2016) Assessment years: 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 Shri Deo Kumar Saraf .Peti tioner Anandalok, DK-7/3, Salt Lake Ci ty, Kolkata-700 091 [PAN:ALCPS 1036 P] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,.... Respondent Circle-49, Ko lkata, Uttarapan Buildin g, Block-DS, 2 n d Floor, Ultadanga, Kolkata-700 054 Appearances by: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, for Petitioner Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT, D=Sr. D.R., for Department Date of concluding th e hearing : October 21, 2016 Date of pronouncing order : October 21, 2016 O R D E R Per Shri P.M. Jagtap, Accountant Member : These two Stay Petitions have been filed by assessee in assessee s appeals in ITA Nos. 1551 & 1552/KOL/2016 for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. 2. By these two Stay Petitions, assessee is seeking stay of demand of Rs.56,66,274/- and Rs.2,03,58,366/- outstanding for assessment year 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. 3. ld. counsel for assessee submits that impugned outstanding demand for both relevant years has arisen as result of disallowance of assessee s claim for exemption on account of long-term 2 S.P. Nos. 42 & 43/KOL/2016 (arising out of ITA Nos. 1551 & 1552/KOL/2016) Assessment Years: 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 capital gain arising from sale of shares. He submits that this issue had come up earlier for consideration of Tribunal and vide appellate orders passed in first round, matter was restored by Tribunal to file of Assessing Officer for deciding same afresh after taking into consideration all relevant details and documents. He contends that Assessing Officer, however, has not properly complied with directions of Tribunal and has decided issue again against assessee without properly appreciating all facts and figures brought on record by assessee. He also submits that assessee is now 72 years old and since Department has already recovered sums of Rs.27.18 lakhs and Rs.50.72 lakhs against demands as originally raised at Rs.83.85 lakhs and Rs.2.54 crores for A.Ys. 2010-11 and 2011-12, it is fit case for grant of stay of balance outstanding demands as sought by assessee at present Petitions. 4. ld. D.R., on other hand, strongly opposes Stay Petitions filed by assessee. He contends that if at all Tribunal is inclined to grant stay of outstanding demand as sought by assessee, assessee should be directed to pay some substantial amount more against outstanding demand. 5. We have considered rival submissions and also perused relevant material available on record. After taking into consideration all relevant aspects of case including prima facie case on merit, age of assessee and his liquidity position as well as fact that sum of more than 30% of outstanding demand for A.Y. 2010-11 has already been recovered by Department from assessee, we are of view that balance of convenience clearly lies in favour of assessee and it is fit case to grant unconditional stay of balance outstanding demand against assessee for A.Y. 2010-11. So far as assessment year 2011-12 is concerned, it is observed that amount of Rs.50.72 lakhs recovered by Department is about 20% of total 3 S.P. Nos. 42 & 43/KOL/2016 (arising out of ITA Nos. 1551 & 1552/KOL/2016) Assessment Years: 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 outstanding demand of Rs.2.54 crores as originally raised against assessee. We, therefore, direct assessee to deposit further sum of Rs.25,00,000/- against outstanding demand for A.Y. 2011-12 within period of 15 days from date of this order to make total payment at about 30% of total outstanding demand as originally raised. Subject to said payment, balance outstanding demand for A.Y. 2011-12 is directed to be kept in abeyance for period of six months or till disposal of relevant appeals of assessee by Tribunal, whichever is earlier. Registry is directed to post said appeals for hearing out of turn on 20.12.2016, as announced in open Court. 6. In result, both Stay Petitions filed by assessee stand allowed in terms indicated above. Order pronounced in open Court on 21 s t day of October, 2016. Sd/- Sd/- N.V. Vasudevan P.M. Jagtap (Judicial Member) (Accountant Member) Kolkata, 21 s t day of October, 2016 Copies to : (1) Shri Deo Kumar Saraf, Anandalok, DK-7/3, Salt Lake Ci ty, Kolkata-700 091 (2) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-49, Ko lkata, Uttarapan Buildin g, Block-DS, 2 n d Floor, Ultadanga, Kolkata-700 054 (3) CIT (Appeals)-15, Kol kata (4) CIT- , Kolkata (5) Depart ment al Represent ative (6) Guard File By order etc Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Kolkata Benches, Kolkata Laha/Sr. P.S. Deo Kumar Saraf v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Kolkata