Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 842909 (ITAT-DELHI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
9 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Stay Application
Pronouncement Date
06-03-2026
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
G
Assessment Year
2012-2013
Appeal Filed On
25-02-2026
Judgement Text
"1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘FRIDAY-G’’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUTANT MEMBER SA No. 132/Del/2026 Arising out of ITA No. 1508/Del/2026 Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Indira Unninayar Legal heir of vs. ITO, Ward 29(1), New Delhi Jayalakshmi Madathil Ekkanathhe, C-122, Belvedere Park, DLF Phase-III, Gurgaon, Haryana (PAN: AAAPU5559L) ( Applicant) ( Respondent ) Applicant by : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CA (Virtual) Respondent by : Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT(DR). Date of Hearing 06.3.2026 Date of Pronouncement 06.3.2026 ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT This Stay Application under Rule 35A of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 has been preferred by the assessee, seeking stay of outstanding demand of Rs. 61,40,650/-. The assessee also filed the Early hearing application in the appeal. Ld. AR has submitted that the original assessee has passed away after the Printed from counselvise.com 2 passing of the assessment order at the age of 92 years and her daughter being her legal heir is pursuing this matter and she is also not having good health and wants for early disposal of the main appeal. He further submitted that 20% of the outstanding demand has already been deposited. In view of the above, he requested for grant of stay of the demand in dispute and in the meantime, early hearing in the corresponding appeal may also be granted. 2. Ld. DR opposed the request of the Ld. AR for grant of stay, but could not controvert the request for early hearing in the appeal. 3. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perusing the records, we find that since 20% of the outstanding demand has been deposited by the assessee. Considering the entirety of circumstances, we deem it fit to grant the stay on the outstanding demand for the period of 180 days from today or till the disposal of the corresponding appeal. So far as the request for early hearing in the corresponding appeal of the assessee is concerned, the same is accepted and Registry is directed to fix the same before the regular Bench on 24.03.2026 for hearing, a date consented by both the sides. 4. Resultantly, the Stay Application is allowed as above. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 06/03/2026. Sd/=- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT SRBhatnagar Date: 06.03.2026 Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. DIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT Assistant Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "
AI summary
The case involves Indira Unninayar, the legal heir of the deceased Jayalakshmi Madathil Ekkanathhe, who filed a stay application against the Income Tax Officer, Ward 29(1), New Delhi, concerning an outstanding tax demand of Rs. 61,40,650 for the assessment year 2012-13. The application was filed under Rule 35A of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, following the death of the original assessee and the subsequent health issues of her daughter, the legal heir. The Tribunal considered the circumstances, including the deposit of 20% of the outstanding demand by the assessee, and decided to grant the stay and expedite the hearing of the appeal.
Mehul