2015 (7) TMI 902 - AT - Income Tax

Extension of stay order - Delay in disposal of appeal - Held that - Delay in hearing and disposal of appeal is not attributable to the assessee since the stay was last extended vide order dated 18.07.2014. Further, we do not agree with the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the revenue that the stay should not be extended withut further deposit because the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 23.06.2014 has set aside the directions given by the Tribunal for further deposit at the time of granting the extension of stay. Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case when the delay in disposal of appeal is not attributable to the assessee and in the light of the order of Hon'ble High Court 2014 (7) TMI 177 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , the assessee has made out a case for further extension of stay. Accordingly we extent the stay against the recovery of balance demand of ₹ 267.26 crore for a further period of six months or till disposal of the appeal whichever comes earlier. - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues involved:
Extension of stay granted by the Tribunal, delay in hearing and disposal of appeal, contention regarding further deposit by the assessee for stay extension.

Extension of stay granted by the Tribunal:
The assessee sought further extension of stay originally granted by the Tribunal subject to payment of a specified amount and collateral security. The Tribunal had extended the stay multiple times, with the last extension granted on a specific date. The delay in hearing and disposal of the appeal was claimed to be not attributable to the assessee due to adjournments sought by the department or non-hearing by the bench. The authorized representative argued that the delay should not affect the extension of stay.

Delay in hearing and disposal of appeal:
The counsel for the revenue objected to further extension of stay without additional deposit by the assessee, citing a substantial outstanding demand. The Tribunal had previously directed the assessee to make a specific deposit, which was later set aside by the High Court. The authorized representative contended that since the delay was not due to the assessee and the High Court had ruled against the deposit condition, it was not appropriate to ask for further payment.

Contention regarding further deposit by the assessee for stay extension:
After considering the submissions from both parties and reviewing the material on record, the Tribunal noted the previous extension of stay and the subsequent delays in hearing the appeal. The Tribunal referred to the High Court's order setting aside the deposit condition and the circumstances of the case. It was observed that the delay was not the fault of the assessee, and in light of the High Court's ruling, the assessee was granted a further extension of stay against the recovery of the outstanding demand. The Tribunal emphasized that unnecessary adjournments by the assessee would lead to the vacation of the stay granted.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the stay application of the assessee, extending the stay against the recovery of the balance demand for a specified period or until the disposal of the appeal, whichever came earlier. The decision was based on the lack of fault on the part of the assessee for the delay in the appeal process and the High Court's order regarding the deposit condition.