2015 (7) TMI 15 - HC - Income Tax

Extension of stay of demand beyond the period of 365 days - revenue has challenged the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal extending stay of demand granted earlier beyond the period of 365 days and in the present case, for approximately 1000 days - Held that - Applying the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Small Industries Development Bank of India (2014 (7) TMI 738 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) to the facts of the case on hand, more particularly while considering the powers of the Tribunal under section 254(2A) of the Act, it is observed and held that by section 254(2A) of the Act, it cannot be inferred a legislative intent to curtail/withdraw powers of the Appellate Tribunal to extend stay of demand beyond the period of 365 days. However, the aforesaid extension of stay beyond the period of total 365 days from the date of grant of initial stay would always be subject to the subjective satisfaction by the learned Appellate Tribunal and on an application made by the assessee / appellant to extend stay and on being satisfied that the delay in disposing of the appeal within a period of 365 days from the date of grant of initial stay is not attributable to the appellant / assessee. For that purpose, on expiry of every 180 days, the appellant / assessee is required to make an application to extend stay granted earlier and satisfy the learned Appellate Tribunal that the delay in not disposing of the appeal is not attributable to him / it and the learned Appellate Tribunal is required to review the matter after every 180 days and while disposing of such application of extension of stay, the learned Appellate Tribunal is required to pass a speaking order after having satisfied that the assessee / appellant has not indulged into any delay tactics and that the delay in disposing of the appeal within stipulated time is not attributable to the assessee / appellant. However, at the same time, it may not be construed that widest powers are given to the Appellate Tribunal to extend the stay indefinitely and that the Appellate Tribunal is not required to dispose of the appeals at the earliest. The object and purpose of section 35C(2A) of the Act particularly one of the object and purpose is to see that in a case where stay has been granted by the learned Appellate Tribunal, the learned Appellate Tribunal is required to dispose of the appeal within total period of 365 days, as ultimately revenue has not to suffer and all efforts should be made by the learned Appellate Tribunal to dispose of such appeals in which stay has been granted as far as possible within total period of 365 days from the date of grant of initial stay and the Appellate Tribunal shall grant priority to such appeals over appeals in which no stay is granted. For that even the Appellate Tribunal and/or registrar of the Appellate Tribunal is required to maintain separate register of the appeals in which stay has been granted fully and/or partially and the appeals in which no stay has been granted. The learned Tribunal is also directed to see that the appeals of a particular assessee with respect same or similar issue involved in earlier years/with respect to respective years are clubbed together and heard and decided and dispose of together, may be with respect to a particular year, it is not a stay granted matter. In the present case, it is reported that the appeal before the learned Tribunal is now heard and the judgment is awaited and it is hoped that the same shall be decided and disposed of at the earliest.

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to extend stay beyond 365 days.
2. Compliance with Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act.
3. Legislative intent behind the time limit for stay orders.
4. Procedural requirements for extending stay orders.
5. Judicial precedents and their applicability.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to Extend Stay Beyond 365 Days:
The petitioner challenged the Tribunal's orders extending the stay of demand beyond 365 days, arguing it was illegal and beyond jurisdiction as per Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal had extended the stay for more than 1000 days, which the revenue contended was contrary to the legislative mandate.

2. Compliance with Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act:
Section 254(2A) mandates that any stay order by the Tribunal cannot exceed 365 days in total. The third proviso to this section states that the stay order shall stand vacated after 365 days, even if the delay in disposing of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee. The revenue argued that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to extend the stay beyond this period.

3. Legislative Intent Behind the Time Limit for Stay Orders:
The legislative intent behind limiting the stay period to 365 days is to ensure that appeals are heard expeditiously and to prevent the assessee from benefiting unduly from prolonged stays. The revenue emphasized that the statutory limit should be respected to avoid misuse and ensure timely resolution of appeals.

4. Procedural Requirements for Extending Stay Orders:
The Tribunal must pass a speaking order while extending the stay, ensuring that the delay is not attributable to the assessee and that the assessee has cooperated fully. The Tribunal is required to review the situation every 180 days and extend the stay only if justified. This ensures that the Tribunal does not extend the stay indefinitely and makes all efforts to dispose of the appeal within the stipulated time.

5. Judicial Precedents and Their Applicability:
The petitioner relied on the Delhi High Court's decision in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Maruti Suzuki (India) Limited, which held that the Tribunal cannot extend the stay beyond 365 days. However, the respondent cited the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Ahmedabad V. Kumar Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd., which allows for the extension of stay beyond 365 days if the delay is not attributable to the assessee. The Gujarat High Court also considered its own decision in Commissioner Vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India, which interpreted similar provisions under the Central Excise Act, allowing for extensions beyond 365 days under specific conditions.

Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to extend the stay beyond 365 days if it is satisfied that the delay is not attributable to the assessee and the assessee has cooperated fully. The Tribunal must pass a speaking order after reviewing the situation every 180 days. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal should prioritize disposing of appeals with stay orders to avoid undue delays and ensure the revenue does not suffer. The petition was disposed of with directions to the Tribunal to follow the outlined procedure and make all efforts to dispose of the appeals at the earliest.

← Previous Next →