2012 (11) TMI 345 - AT - Income Tax

Extension of stay of outstanding demand - Held that - As decided in CIT v. Ronuk Industries Ltd. 2010 (11) TMI 461 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT where the delay in disposal of pending appeal is not attributable to the assessee, the Tribunal has the power the extend the stay beyond the period of 365 days even after the amendment of third proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Act w.e.f. 1.10.2008 - thus grant of stay beyond 60 days would be in the interest of natural justice - in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Stay applications for extension of outstanding demand for AY 2000-01 to 2006-07.

Analysis:
1. The assessee filed stay applications seeking an extension of the outstanding demand from Assessment Year (AY) 2000-01 to 2006-07.
2. The history of the case reveals that the assessee was initially granted a stay on tax collection for six months or until the relevant appeals were disposed of. This stay was subsequently extended multiple times.
3. The counsel for the assessee argued that there was no default on the part of the assessee, and the delay in appeal disposal was due to reasons beyond the assessee's control, justifying the extension of the stay.
4. It was highlighted that the appeals had already been heard and were awaiting adjudication, with the outstanding demand for AY 2007-08 also being stayed.
5. The Departmental Representative (DR) relied on a judgment of the High Court of Karnataka, emphasizing the statutory provision limiting the extension of stay to 365 days.
6. Despite the DR's objections, the extension of stay was supported in light of the pending appeals and compliance with payment conditions by the assessee.
7. The assessee's representative cited judgments from the Bombay High Court and the ITAT Mumbai 'F' Special Bench, supporting the extension of stay beyond 365 days if the delay in appeal disposal was not attributable to the assessee.
8. Considering the conflicting opinions and absence of a jurisdictional High Court decision, the Tribunal favored the view beneficial to the assessee.
9. It was acknowledged that the delay in appeal disposal was not solely the fault of the assessee, and all payment conditions had been met, justifying the extension of stay in the interest of natural justice.
10. Given the pending nature of the appeals and the imminent adjudication of related cases, the Tribunal decided to further extend the stay on the outstanding demand until a specified date or appeal disposal, whichever came earlier.
11. Consequently, the applications for the extension of stay filed by the assessee were allowed, granting the requested relief.