9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (4) TMI 657 - AT - Income TaxExtension of Stay - payment in four installments - delay in non-disposal of appeal - HELD THAT - The Hon ble Delhi High Court in Pepsi Foods (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT 2015 (5) TMI 655 - DELHI HIGH COURT and case of M/s. SAP Labs (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 2016 (2) TMI 398 - ITAT BANGALORE has held that, if the delay is not attributable to the assessee, the Tribunal has power to extend the period of stay even beyond the time limit laid down in 3rd proviso to Section 254(2A) . We, considering the facts and circumstances and the stay petition filed by the assessee, hold that the delay in non-disposal of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee. Hence the balance of convenience lies in favour of the assessee for extending the stay as the assessee has complied with the directions of the Tribunal and the Hon ble High Court in payment of instalments. Accordingly, we extend the stay of outstanding demand for a further period of six months from the date of this order or disposal of the appeal whichever is earlier - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Extension of stay of outstanding demand beyond 365 days under Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Analysis: The Appellate Tribunal, ITAT Bangalore, dealt with the Stay Petition filed by the assessee for extension of stay of outstanding demand beyond the initial period granted by the Tribunal. The original stay was subject to payment of installments, which the assessee duly complied with as per directions from the High Court. The delay in the disposal of the appeal was not attributed to the assessee, as highlighted by the Authorized Representative. The Departmental Representative objected to the extension of stay, citing Section 254(2A) of the Act, which limits the extension to 365 days. However, the Authorized Representative relied on legal precedents, including the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Pepsi Foods (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT, to argue that if the delay is not attributable to the assessee, the Tribunal has the power to grant an extension beyond the statutory limit. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both sides and referenced the judgments of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and ITAT Bangalore Bench in similar cases. The Tribunal emphasized that when the delay in appeal disposal is not caused by the assessee, the Tribunal can extend the stay period, even beyond the 365-day limit specified in the Act. The Tribunal highlighted the constitutional aspect of non-discrimination and the need to treat assessees fairly based on their conduct in the appeal proceedings. The decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court was followed, and the Tribunal concluded that the delay in this case was not attributable to the assessee, justifying the extension of the stay. In light of the legal principles and precedents discussed, the Tribunal allowed the Stay Petitions filed by the assessee, extending the stay of the outstanding demand for a further period of six months from the date of the order or until the disposal of the appeal, whichever is earlier. The Tribunal's decision was based on the balance of convenience favoring the assessee, who had complied with the Tribunal and High Court's directions regarding the payment of installments. The judgment was pronounced in favor of the assessee, granting the requested extension of stay.
|
