2018 (12) TMI 1137 - AT - Income Tax

Extension of stay of outstanding demand - delay in disposal of appeal - delay was not attributable to the assessee - Held that - We find that the averments of the assessee in as much as that delay is not attributable to the assessee all borne out from the record. We are informed that the hearing which stood concluded pertaining to 2009-10. Taking note of the fact that there is no change in facts and circumstances as noted by the coordinate benches we find that in the facts of the present case, since delay is not attributable to the assessee, thus prima facie the assessee has a good case for extension of stay. Accordingly, considering the balance of convenience we extend the stay for a period of 6 months or till the disposal of the appeal whichever is earlier. The assessee shall ensure that no adjournment is moved except for bonafide reasons if need be.

Summary

Issues:
Extension of stay of outstanding demand in assessment years 2011-12 and 2013-14.

Analysis:
The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi considered the stay applications moved under Rule 35 A of the ITAT Rules 1963 for extension of stay of outstanding demand in assessment years 2011-12 and 2013-14. The initial stay was granted subject to certain terms and conditions, including the deposit of a specified amount by a certain date and restrictions on alienation of properties. The stay was subsequently extended multiple times, with the latest extension granted based on the fact that the delay in disposal of the appeal was not attributable to the assessee. The Tribunal relied on a judgment by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court regarding the Tribunal's power to extend stay beyond 365 days if the delay is not the assessee's fault. The stay was further extended for a period of six months or till the disposal of the appeal, whichever is earlier.

In the case of assessment year 2013-14, similar reasons were cited for the extension of stay, emphasizing that the delay was not attributable to the assessee. The Tribunal noted the sequence of events leading to the delay in disposal of the appeal and found that the conditions of stay were duly complied with. The Tribunal granted an extension of stay for a period of six months or till the disposal of the appeal, based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.

The Senior DR suggested that the assessee should make some payment due to the extended period of stay. However, the AR argued against this, stating that there was no change in circumstances and the delay was not the fault of the assessee. The AR relied on precedent and requested the extension of stay.

After considering the submissions and the record, the Tribunal found that the delay was not attributable to the assessee, and the facts supported the extension of stay. The Tribunal noted that the hearing for the assessment year 2009-10 had been fixed for clarification. Therefore, the Tribunal extended the stay for a period of six months or till the disposal of the appeal, whichever is earlier, directing the assessee to avoid unnecessary adjournments.

In conclusion, the Tribunal granted the extension of stay for both assessment years based on the facts presented and the absence of fault on the part of the assessee in the delay of the appeal process.