2018 (9) TMI 409 - AT - Income Tax

Stay on demand - Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Held that - Tribunal vide Order dated 23.02.2018 subject to direction to both the parties to argue both the appeals on priority basis. It was also directed that both the parties shall not seek any adjournment in these appeals on 13.03.2018. However, the assessee has sought adjournment on 13.03.2018 and thereafter, continuously has been making request for adjournment. It, therefore, appears that assessee is not interested in arguing the appeals as well as stay application. Since the Order of the Tribunal is not complied with and the disposal of appeals are delayed on the default of the assessee because assessee has been seeking adjournment continuously, therefore, in our view, it is not a fit case for grant of stay. We, accordingly, vacate the interim order dated 23.02.2018 and dismiss the stay application.

Summary

Issues: Stay application for demand of ?125 crores for A.Y. 2010-2011 under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The stay application filed by the assessee for the demand of ?125 crores for A.Y. 2010-2011 under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was taken up for multiple hearings due to the absence of the assessee's representation. Despite several adjournments, the Tribunal directed that both the quantum appeal and penalty appeal should be heard on a priority basis. The parties were instructed to complete arguments expeditiously without seeking adjournments. However, the assessee continuously sought adjournments, delaying the resolution of the appeals. The Tribunal noted the non-compliance with the order and the delay caused by the assessee's repeated requests for adjournment, indicating a lack of interest in pursuing the appeals. Consequently, the Tribunal found it inappropriate to grant the stay application, vacated the interim order, and dismissed the stay application.

The Learned D.R. argued against granting the stay application, highlighting the continuous adjournments sought by the assessee in both the stay application and appeals. The Tribunal had initially granted interim protection subject to a directive for both parties to prioritize the appeals and refrain from seeking adjournments. However, the assessee's repeated requests for adjournments, starting from the initial hearing date, indicated a lack of commitment to advancing the appeals. The Tribunal observed that the delay in disposing of the appeals was primarily due to the assessee's actions, leading to the decision to vacate the interim order and dismiss the stay application.

The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the stay application was based on the assessee's continuous requests for adjournment, which hindered the expeditious resolution of the appeals. Despite the initial interim protection granted by the Tribunal and the directive to prioritize the appeals, the assessee consistently sought adjournments, suggesting a lack of interest in advancing the case. The Tribunal noted the default on the part of the assessee for the delays in disposing of the appeals and concluded that it was not a suitable case for granting the stay application. Consequently, the Tribunal vacated the interim order and dismissed the stay application, emphasizing the importance of compliance with directives and timely resolution of tax disputes.