9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (1) TMI 516 - AT - Income TaxPowers of Tribunal - seeking extension of stay beyond 365 days - Held that - As decided in CIT vs Ronuk Industries Ltd (2010 (11) TMI 461 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) that the Tribunal has power to extend the period of stay beyond 365 dyas u/s.254(2A) third proviso even if the delay in disposing off the appeal is not attributable to the assessee there may be several other reasons for not disposing of the appeal by the ITAT. As the appellant paid 90% outstanding demand in A.Y. 08-09. Keeping in view of the legal position on this issue stay the demand period of 180 days or till disposal of the appeal subject to conditions that the appellant shall pay 90% demand for A.Y. 09-10 similar to A.Y. 08- 09 by 31.01.2013 & If the Hon ble Supreme Court decides the case within stay period the appellant should make a petition accordingly to start early hearing - Stay Applications of the assessee stand allowed in the terms indicated above.
Issues:
Stay petitions for A.Y. 08-09 & 09-10 - Extension of stay beyond 365 days - Payment of outstanding demand - Legal position on extending stay period. Analysis: The appellant filed stay petitions for A.Y. 08-09 & 09-10 seeking extension beyond 365 days. The appellant's representative argued that the delay in disposing of the appeal was not attributable to the assessee, citing similar cases pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Referring to legal precedents, including the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs Ronuk Industries Ltd., it was contended that the Tribunal has the power to extend the stay period beyond 365 days under section 254(2A), third proviso. The appellant had paid 90% of the outstanding demand for A.Y. 08-09. Considering these arguments and legal positions, the Tribunal granted the stay for a period of 180 days or until the disposal of the appeal, subject to certain conditions. The appellant's counsel relied on various judgments to support the request for extending the stay period. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision in Narang Overseas case was cited, emphasizing that the Tribunal's power to grant interim relief is not defeated by the provisos to the sub-section. The counsel also referred to other cases like CIT vs Ronuk Industries Ltd. and Tata Communications Ltd vs ACIT, where extension of stay beyond 365 days was granted to the assessee due to a delay in disposal not attributable to the assessee. The counsel argued that in cases of cleavage of opinion amongst High Courts, the view favorable to the assessee should be adopted, as held in Qualcomm Incorporated case by the Delhi Tribunal. The Departmental Representative opposed the extension of stay, referring to the outer limit prescribed in the act itself and arguing that the delay was attributed to the assessee. Citing the Dunlop India Ltd. case, the representative highlighted the importance of not jeopardizing public revenue due to interim orders. The representative emphasized that interim orders causing administrative inconvenience or preventing the collection of public revenue should not be granted without clear balance of convenience in favor of the order. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal considered the arguments and legal positions presented. Given the legal precedents and the appellant's compliance with payment of outstanding demands, the Tribunal granted the stay subject to specific conditions, including payment of a certain percentage of the demand for A.Y. 09-10 by a specified date and the appellant's obligation to petition for early hearing if the Hon'ble Supreme Court decides the case within the stay period. The stay applications of the assessee were allowed based on these considerations.
|
