2014 (7) TMI 900 - AT - Income Tax

Extension of stay of outstanding demand Held that - The Jurisdictional High Court, has held that the variation / modification in the terms of earlier stay granted by the Tribunal should not be disturbed as there has been no change in the facts and circumstances, when the original stay was granted - prima-facie the issue involved has not been settled finally against the assessee and also that there is no material change in the facts and circumstances of the case, the stay should be extended - the assessee has never sought any adjournment during the hearing of the appeal and it is only the Department which has been seeking adjournments from time to time - There is no fault on the part of the assessee for conducting the appeal thus, the outstanding demand for the AYs is stayed for a further period of six months or passing of the order by the Tribunal in the appeal, whichever is earlier Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
Extension of stay of outstanding demand, Variation in conditions of stay, Prima facie case of the assessee, Applicability of third proviso to section 254(2A).

Extension of Stay of Outstanding Demand:
The assessee sought an extension of stay of an outstanding demand of Rs. 267,26,54,239, which was originally granted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal had directed the assessee to pay a sum of Rs. 30 crores and furnish collateral security for the balance demand. The stay was extended multiple times due to the appeal not being disposed of, without any fault on the part of the assessee. The High Court held that the variation in the conditions of the stay granted by the Tribunal was not justified, and the order was modified to do away with the variation. The Tribunal granted the extension of stay for a further period of six months or until the appeal order is passed, whichever is earlier.

Variation in Conditions of Stay:
The High Court found that the variation made in the terms of the stay granted by the Tribunal was not justified as there was no apparent change in the facts and circumstances from when the original stay was granted. The High Court modified the order to remove the variation in the terms of the stay. The Tribunal, considering the lack of change in circumstances and the assessee's prima facie case, decided to extend the stay of the outstanding demand.

Prima Facie Case of the Assessee:
The assessee argued that the appeal had come up for hearing on several occasions, adjourned at the request of the Department, and now fixed for final hearing. The assessee requested the stay granted earlier to be extended without further modification due to no apparent change in facts and circumstances when the earlier stay was granted. The Tribunal, after considering the facts and circumstances, agreed to extend the stay.

Applicability of Third Proviso to Section 254(2A):
The Department argued that there had been significant changes in facts and circumstances since the passing of the earlier stay order, resulting in an increased demand. The Department contended that no stay should be granted as the balance of convenience was no longer in favor of the assessee. The Department also relied on the third proviso to section 254(2A) to argue that the Tribunal cannot extend the stay beyond 365 days. The assessee, in response, highlighted challenges to the Assessing Officer's orders and cited favorable decisions in similar matters. The Tribunal, after hearing both parties, extended the stay based on the lack of fault on the part of the assessee and the absence of material changes in the circumstances.

This detailed analysis covers the extension of stay of outstanding demand, the variation in conditions of stay, the prima facie case of the assessee, and the applicability of the third proviso to section 254(2A) as addressed in the legal judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai.