2015 (4) TMI 12 - HC - Income Tax

Stay of demand - Held that - Petitioner has approached this Court by way of this writ petition seeking extension of stay in respect of the assessment year 2009-10 till the disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before us several orders passed by this court, whereby this Court has extended the stay initially granted by the Tribunal till the disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In fact, it is settled law that there is no bar for grant of such a relief if the Court is of the opinion that the circumstances and the ends of justice so warrant. This has also been stated clearly in Maruti Suzuki (2014 (2) TMI 1037 - DELHI HIGH COURT). We feel that since the petitioner had already been granted conditional stay by the Tribunal in respect of the said appeal and that the Tribunal is in the midst of hearing the appeal, it would be in the interest of justice that the stay order granted by the Tribunal is continued till the disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly.

Summary

Issues:
1. Extension of stay in respect of assessment year 2009-10 till the disposal of appeal by the Tribunal.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the issue of extending the stay in a case where the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against an assessment order. Initially, the Tribunal had granted a stay of demand subject to certain conditions. Subsequently, the Tribunal extended the interim stay, but a Division Bench decision clarified that the Tribunal cannot extend the stay beyond 365 days from the initial grant. As the 365-day period was approaching, the petitioner sought an extension of stay till the appeal's disposal. The petitioner approached the High Court through a writ petition for this purpose.

The Court considered previous orders where it had extended stays granted by the Tribunal till appeal disposal under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court reiterated that if circumstances and justice warrant, such relief can be granted. Referring to the Maruti Suzuki case, the Court emphasized that there is no bar to extending the stay in appropriate cases. Given that the Tribunal was actively hearing the appeal and had initially granted conditional stay, the Court found it just to continue the stay order until the Tribunal's final decision. The Court disposed of the writ petition with the directive that the Tribunal should expedite the appeal's disposal.

In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the Court's authority to extend stays granted by the Tribunal under Article 226 of the Constitution in cases where circumstances and justice demand such relief. The Court emphasized the importance of expeditious disposal of appeals by the Tribunal and granted the extension of stay in the petitioner's case until the appeal's final resolution.