" \n \nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI \n \nBEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VP AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM \n \nSA No. 47/Mum/2025 \n(Arising out of ITA No. 945/Mum/2025) \n(Assessment Year: 2017-18) \nKerala Catholic Association \nKCA Bhavan, St. Francis of Asis \nInternational School, \nP. L. Lokhande Marg, Chembur, \nMumbai-400 043 \nVs. \nIncome Tax Officer (Execmption) \nWard 1(4) \nRoom No. 612, 6th Floor, \nCumballa Hill, MTNL TE Building, \nPeddar Road, Dr. Gopalrao \nDeshmukh Marg, Mumbai-400 026 \n \nPAN/GIR No. AAATK 3121 E \n(Applicant) \n: \n(Respondent) \n \nApplicant by \n: \nShri Tanzil R. Padvekar \nRespondent by \n: \nShri Bangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh \n \nDate of Hearing \n: \n21.03.2025 \nDate of Pronouncement \n: \n21.03.2025 \n \nO R D E R \n \nPer Saktijit Dey, VP: \n \n \nThe captioned application has been filed by the assessee, seeking stay on recovery \nof outstanding demand of Rs.51,56,607/-, pertaining to the assessment year (A.Y. for short) \n2017-18. \n \n2. \nThe ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee, submitted that the disputed demand \narises due to denial of exemption claimed u/s. 11 of the Act, for belated furnishing of Form \n10. He further submitted that though post assessment, the assessee has paid 20% of the \noutstanding demand and intimation of such payment was also furnished before the \nAssessing Officer (AO), however, the A.O. has passed an order attaching the bank account, \nas well rejecting the stay application. He further submitted that the appeal is already fixed \nfor hearing on 08.04.2025. He submitted that due to attachment of bank account, the \n\n2 \nSA No. 47/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2017-18) \nKerala Catholic Association vs. ITO(E) \n \n \n \nactivities of the assessee which involves running of school is severely affected, \njeopardizing the education of the students. Thus, he submitted that the attachment order be \nrecalled and the recovery of the balance demand be stayed till disposal of the appeal. \n \n3. \nThe learned Departmental Representative ('ld. DR' for short) opposed the grant of \nstay. \n \n4. \nWe have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on \nrecord. Insofar as, the merits of the issue arising in appeal is concerned, it has to be looked \ninto at the time of hearing of the appeal and not at this stage. After considering the prima \nfacie case, balance of convenience and also the fact that the assessee has paid 20% of the \noutstanding demand, we are inclined to grant stay on recovery of the balance demand for \na period of 180 days from the date of this order or till the disposal of the corresponding \nappeal, whichever is earlier. Further, we vacate the attachment order so passed by the A.O. \nWe make it clear that in the event of any adjournment being sought by the assessee, the \nstay granted is likely to be vacated. Paper books, if any, must be filed sufficiently ahead of \nthe date of hearing. \n \n5. \nIn the result, the stay application is allowed as indicated above. \nOrder pronounced in the open court on 21.03.2025. \n \n \n Sd/- \n \n Sd/- \n \n (Vikram Singh Yadav) (Saktijit Dey) \n Accountant Member Vice President \nMumbai; Dated : 21.03.2025 \nRoshani, Sr. PS \n \n \n\n3 \nSA No. 47/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2017-18) \nKerala Catholic Association vs. ITO(E) \n \n \n \nCopy of the Order forwarded to : \n \n1. \nThe Appellant \n2. \nThe Respondent \n3. \nCIT - concerned \n4. \nDR, ITAT, Mumbai \n5. \nGuard File \n BY ORDER, \n \n \n \n(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) \nITAT, Mumbai \n \n \n"