2021 (4) TMI 840 - AT - Income Tax

Stay on demand - extension of stay - HELD THAT - We notice that the lead case is pending from 2014 and Coordinate Bench has granted the stay on condition and after going through the argument of both the counsels, we are of the view that assessee has no fault for the delay in disposing of the pending appeals. We are of the view that assessee deserves to be granted extension of stay for a period of 4 months and accordingly, we grant the same. As submitted by Ld. AR, the hearing of appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is coming up on 30.03.2021, therefore we direct the Registry to fix for hearing of the other 3 appeals for Assessment Year 2010-11 to 2012-13 on the same date i.e. 30.03.2021. Accordingly, the stay applications filed by the assessee are allowed. 8. In the result, all the Stay Applications filed by the assessee for the extension of stay stands allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Stay applications for extension of stay for assessment years 2009-10 to 2012-13; Whether extension of stay should be granted; Applicability of new rule requiring payment of 20% of tax demand.

Analysis:
The appellant filed four Stay Applications (SA) seeking extension of stay for assessment years 2009-10 to 2012-13. The lead case, SA no. 182/Mum/2020, was pending for disposal, leading to subsequent stay applications. The appellant highlighted various reasons for the delays, emphasizing the need for extension to avoid adverse consequences from the Assessing Officer due to the expiry of the stay period. The appellant argued that the delay in completing the appeal was not their fault and requested an extension of stay for 180 days.

The appellant had already paid the tax due for the Assessment Year 2009-10 as per the tax demand determined by the ITAT before the stay was granted. The appellant contended that the new provision introduced by the Finance Act 2020 should not apply to the extension of stay due to the pending stay granted earlier. Citing decisions from other ITAT benches, the appellant sought an extension without additional conditions. On the contrary, the Departmental Representative (DR) insisted that the appellant should deposit at least 20% of the tax demand, citing the applicability of the new rule to stay extension cases.

After considering the submissions and records, the Tribunal noted the prolonged pendency of the lead case since 2014 and acknowledged that the delay in disposing of the pending appeals was not the appellant's fault. Consequently, the Tribunal granted an extension of stay for four months without imposing the requirement of depositing 20% of the tax demand. The Tribunal directed the Registry to schedule the hearing of the other three appeals for assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13 on the same date as the lead case, which was set for hearing on 30.03.2021. Ultimately, all the Stay Applications filed by the appellant for the extension of stay were allowed, providing relief to the appellant from the impending recovery proceedings.