2017 (1) TMI 735 - AT - Income Tax

Rejection of a stay petition by the CIT(A) an appealable order under section 253 - Does the Tribunal have the power to admit, hear and decide an appeal against the rejection of a stay petition by the CIT(A), when no appeal of the assessee on quantum is before the Tribunal? - Held that - We find in the present case that the question would not call for adjudication for the reasons that the quantum appeal of the assessee is already pending before this Tribunal and as such, this Tribunal could always pass such interim orders in accordance with law if required. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that even in a case where no appeal is pending before this Tribunal and the CIT(A) is seized of the matter, refusing to grant interim order to stay recovery proceedings, this tribunal can always entertain an appeal against the refusal and adjudicate on the legality of the order. We do not wish to enter into this controversy at this stage as it would be an academic exercise. It is well settled that the adjudicatory body does not answer / entertain academic question. It would not be proper for us to pronounce upon the questions raised before us in these circumstances.

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of decision of Delhi Bench of ITAT in a specific case
2. Appealability of rejection of stay petition by CIT(A)
3. Power of Tribunal to hear appeal against rejection of stay petition by CIT(A)
4. Interpretation of statutory provisions regarding stay of recovery proceedings

Analysis:
The judgment before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT PANAJI involved a disagreement over the applicability of a decision by the Delhi Bench of ITAT in a specific case, along with questions regarding the appealability of the rejection of a stay petition by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal's power to hear such appeals. The Tribunal considered three questions for decision, including the appealability of the rejection of a stay petition by CIT(A) under Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal clarified that in cases where the quantum appeal of the assessee is already pending before the Tribunal, interim orders can be passed if required, rendering the first question unnecessary for adjudication.

Regarding the power of the Tribunal to hear appeals against the rejection of stay petitions by CIT(A), the Tribunal noted that even if no appeal on quantum is pending before the Tribunal, it could entertain an appeal against the refusal to grant an interim stay. However, the Tribunal refrained from delving into this issue, stating that addressing academic questions is not within its purview. Additionally, a similar question admitted by the High Court at Allahabad further complicated the matter, leading the Tribunal to defer the decision pending the High Court's ruling.

In response to concerns raised by the appellant's counsel about the protection of the assessee's interests, the Tribunal emphasized that the assessee could always file a proper application for a stay of recovery proceedings in accordance with the law. Ultimately, the Tribunal disposed of the petition without a definitive ruling, as the matter was pending before the High Court at Allahabad. The judgment highlighted the importance of following proper legal procedures and seeking redress through the appropriate channels to protect the interests of the parties involved.