2015 (5) TMI 790 - HC - Income Tax

Extension of stay - Held that - 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 petitioner filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against an assessment order and was granted stay of demand subject to conditions. The Tribunal extended the interim stay, but a subsequent order clarified that the Tribunal cannot extend the stay beyond 365 days from the initial grant. As the 365-day period had lapsed, the petitioner could not seek further extension from the Tribunal. Despite the appeal being listed for hearing, it could not proceed due to reasons not attributed to the petitioner. The petitioner then approached the High Court through a writ petition seeking an extension of stay till the appeal's disposal.

The High Court considered previous orders where it extended stays granted by the Tribunal till appeal disposal. Referring to the decision in CIT v. Maruti Suzuki, the Court reiterated that it has the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to grant such relief if circumstances and justice warrant it. Given that the petitioner had conditional stay from the Tribunal and the appeal was under Tribunal's consideration, the Court deemed it just to continue the stay order granted by the Tribunal until the appeal's final disposal. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of in favor of the petitioner.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the petitioner's writ petition seeking an extension of stay in relation to the assessment year 2009-10 until the Tribunal's final decision on the appeal. The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, citing previous instances where such relief was granted, and considering the ongoing appeal proceedings before the Tribunal. The decision aimed at ensuring justice and maintaining the status quo until the appeal's resolution.