9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Stay of demand applications filed by the assessee, jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal to grant stay of demand after disposal of appeals, interpretation of statutory powers of the Appellate Tribunal, relevance of reference applications under section 256(1) in granting stay of demand, the impact of pending references on the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal, applicability of previous court decisions on granting stay of recovery proceedings. Analysis: The assessee filed separate applications for stay of demand, citing serious dispute with the tax amount and lack of liquid funds for payment. The assessee offered immovable properties as security for the outstanding amounts. The Appellate Tribunal considered the arguments of both parties regarding the stay petitions. The revenue contended that since the appeals were disposed of and reference applications were made, the Appellate Tribunal had no jurisdiction to grant stay of demand. However, the assessee argued that the Tribunal had inherent powers to stay the demand to prevent the appeal from being rendered nugatory. The Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court decision in ITO v. M.K. Mohammed Kunhi, emphasizing that the Appellate Tribunal has inherent powers to make orders for staying recovery proceedings pending an appeal. While acknowledging the completion of the appeals, the Tribunal noted the decision in CIT v. Bansi Dhar & Sons, which stated that the Appellate Tribunal retains jurisdiction until the reference to the High Court or Supreme Court is disposed of. This implies that the Tribunal can grant stay of realization of tax even after disposing of the appeals. The Tribunal highlighted a Bombay High Court decision in Ritz Ltd. v. D.D. Vyas, affirming the Tribunal's power to stay reassessment proceedings during a reference before the High Court. The High Court held that the Appellate Tribunal's power to grant stay of realization remains intact even during pending references. The Tribunal concluded that despite disposing of the appeals, it retains inherent jurisdiction and statutory powers to grant stay of recovery proceedings. However, after hearing the parties on the Reference Application matters, the Tribunal declined to make a reference of the questions as they were not deemed as questions of law. Consequently, with no matter pending before the Appellate Tribunal or a reference pending before the High Court, the Tribunal rejected the stay petitions in line with the legal principles established by previous court decisions. In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the stay petitions of the assessee based on the absence of pending matters and the Tribunal's interpretation of its jurisdiction and statutory powers in granting stay of recovery proceedings.
|
