2017 (9) TMI 1634 - HC - Income Tax

Application to extend the stay order rejected - Held that - It would be appropriate to dispose of this petition directing the ITAT Regular Bench where the appeal of the petitioner-Company is stated to be pending to decide the petitioner-Company s appeal, within a period of 10 working days from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. For this purpose an appropriate date be fixed on the petitioner-Company s application for early listing of the pending before the ITAT. Further in view of the petitioner s case that the issue before the ITAT is fully covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Jaipur vs. M/s. Bharti Hexacom Limited. (2017 (7) TMI 1076 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT) it would also be free to move afresh an application for extension of stay order before the ITAT

Summary

Issues:
1. Extension of stay order in an appeal filed under Section 210 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Disposal of the petition in terms of a specific judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court.
3. Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Extension of Stay Order:
The petitioner, a company, was aggrieved by the rejection of its application to extend the stay order by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in relation to a demand for Assessment Year 2012-13. The petitioner argued that the issue pending before the ITAT was covered by a judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in a related case. The respondent, the Income Tax Officer, suggested that the petitioner should seek disposal of its appeal before the ITAT in line with the High Court's judgment instead of invoking the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court directed the ITAT to decide the petitioner's appeal within 10 working days from the date of the order and allowed the petitioner to reapply for an extension of the stay order based on the High Court's judgment.

Disposal of Petition:
The High Court considered the arguments presented by both parties and decided to dispose of the petition by directing the ITAT to decide the petitioner's appeal promptly, within a specified timeframe of 10 working days from the order date. The High Court emphasized that the petitioner could request an early listing of the appeal before the ITAT and apply for an extension of the stay order based on the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court. The High Court's decision aimed to ensure a timely resolution of the petitioner's case in accordance with the relevant legal provisions and judicial precedents.

Jurisdiction under Article 226:
The High Court, after hearing the submissions from both sides, concluded that it was appropriate to dispose of the petition by instructing the ITAT to decide the petitioner's appeal promptly. The High Court highlighted that the petitioner could seek an extension of the stay order before the ITAT based on the High Court's judgment. By choosing this course of action, the High Court avoided delving into the jurisdictional aspects under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and instead focused on providing a practical solution for the resolution of the petitioner's case within the existing legal framework and precedents.