2019 (11) TMI 213 - HC - Income Tax

Stay of recovery of demand - Tribunal should deal with such cases on priority. He points out that, on the one hand, the assessee has obtained the stay of the outstanding demand while, on the other hand, it is pressing for refund of the amount due in respect of previous assessment years. He points out that the respondent s writ petition is pending before this Court and is listed on 21.01.2020. We are of the considered view that in cases where there is stay of recovery of demand of tax, the Tribunal should deal with the appeals pending before it on a higher priority. The Tribunal should consider forming a separate list of such cases which should be heard on priority after arranging the cases on the basis of their seniority as well as the quantum involved in the stay.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal and refiling the appeal.
2. Extension of stay on outstanding demand by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) beyond 365 days.
3. Tribunal's jurisdiction to extend the stay beyond 365 days.
4. Priority in dealing with cases where there is a stay of recovery of demand by the Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The court addressed the issue of condonation of delay in filing the appeal and refiling the appeal. The respondent did not oppose the applications seeking condonation of 21 days delay in filing the appeal and 58 days delay in refiling the appeal. The court disposed of the applications accordingly.

2. The appellant challenged the ITAT's order extending the stay on an outstanding demand of ?1,08,95,83,260 beyond the initial period of 365 days. The court referred to a previous judgment in Pepsi Foods Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr., 2015 376 ITR 87, which held that the Tribunal is empowered to extend the stay even beyond 365 days. Consequently, the court found no question of law for consideration in the present appeal.

3. The respondent informed the court that a further extension of stay was granted by the Tribunal after the impugned order. The court acknowledged the appellant's submission that cases with a stay of recovery of demand should be dealt with on priority. Emphasizing the need for prioritization, the court suggested that the Tribunal should create a separate list of such cases to be heard promptly based on seniority and the quantum involved in the stay.

4. In conclusion, the court disposed of the appeal by emphasizing the importance of dealing with cases involving a stay of recovery of demand by the Tribunal on a higher priority basis. The court recommended the Tribunal to establish a system for prioritizing such cases to ensure efficient handling based on seniority and the amount in question.