9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (6) TMI 641 - AT - Income TaxExtension of demand stayed by Tribunal Held that - CIT vs. Ronuk Industries Ltd. 2010 (11) TMI 461 - Bombay High Court - where the delay in the disposal of pending appeal is not attributable to the assessee, the Tribunal has the power to extend the stay beyond the period of 365 days even after the amendment of the third proviso to section 254(2A) w.e.f. 1st October, 2008 - the assessee had already complied with the terms and conditions of the first stay, further stay is granted till the disposal of the present appeal or for a further period of 180 days from the date of this order, whichever is earlier stay granted.
Issues: Extension of stay of demand for assessment year 2007-08
Analysis: The judgment pertains to a stay application seeking an extension of the demand already stayed by the Tribunal for the assessment year 2007-08 until the final disposal of the appeal. The Tribunal had previously granted stays which were subsequently extended multiple times due to non-disposal of the appeal. The counsel for the assessee argued that the delay in hearing was not the fault of the assessee. Citing precedents like Tata Communications Ltd. vs ACIT and CIT vs. Ronuk Industries Ltd., it was held that the Tribunal has the power to extend the stay even beyond 365 days if the delay is not attributable to the assessee. Considering the factual position and the assessee's compliance with the terms of the initial stay, the Tribunal granted the extension of stay till the disposal of the appeal or for a further 180 days from the date of the order, whichever is earlier. The appeal was scheduled for a hearing on a specific date. The Tribunal imposed a condition that the extension of stay is subject to the assessee not seeking adjournment without just cause. Any unwarranted adjournment would lead to automatic revocation of the stay and the case being de-listed from priority, to be heard in the normal course. Ultimately, the stay application was allowed, and the order was pronounced in open court on May 30, 2014.
|
