2015 (5) TMI 1136 - AT - Income Tax

Extension of stay - whether delay in hearing being not attributable to the assessee? - Held that - This Tribunal in its order dated 31.10.2014 granted stay of recovery to the assessee for the balance remaining amount of total demand of ₹ 129,42,20,422. The assessee had already paid ₹ 60 crores out of the said demand. The stay was granted subjected to condition that assessee should pay a further sum of ₹ 9,42,20,422 before 30.11.2014. The stay was granted by the Tribunal considering the merits of the case, balance of convenience and financial position of the assessee. The assessee had complied with the conditions set out in the stay by effecting further payment of ₹ 10 lakhs on 25.11.2014. The case has been posted for hearing on 8.7.2015. We are satisfied that there is no delay attributable to the assessee. We therefore grant a further stay for a period of six months w.e.f. 1.5.2015, or till the disposal of the appeal, whichever is earlier.

Summary

Issues: Stay extension plea due to compliance with payment conditions, financial hardship demonstration, and delay in hearing.

Comprehensive Analysis:

1. Stay Extension Request: The assessee filed a stay petition seeking an extension of the stay granted by the Tribunal's previous order. The assessee had already paid a substantial amount towards the total demand and requested an extension due to the delay in the hearing, which was not attributed to the assessee. The Tribunal had initially granted stay subject to certain conditions, including further payment by a specified date.

2. Compliance with Payment Conditions: The Tribunal noted that the assessee had complied with the conditions set out in the previous stay order by making additional payments as required. The Tribunal considered the merits of the case, the balance of convenience, and the financial position of the assessee before granting the initial stay. The assessee had also made a further payment after the expiry of the initial stay period, demonstrating continued compliance.

3. Financial Hardship Demonstration: The Departmental Representative opposed the extension of stay, arguing that the assessee had not demonstrated any financial hardship or difficulty. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee had met the payment conditions and had not caused any delay in the proceedings, indicating that financial hardship was not a significant concern in this case.

4. Decision and Grant of Stay: After considering the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal granted a further stay for a period of six months from May 1, 2015, or until the disposal of the appeal, whichever is earlier. The Tribunal acknowledged the timely payments made by the assessee and the absence of any delay attributable to the assessee in the proceedings, leading to the decision to extend the stay.

5. Conclusion: The stay petition was allowed, and the decision was pronounced in open court on May 1, 2015. The Tribunal's decision to grant the extension of stay was based on the assessee's compliance with payment conditions, the absence of delay caused by the assessee, and the overall merits of the case and financial position of the assessee.