9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 253X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the Departmental Representative had prayed for an adjournment because the necessary case papers were not available to submit that even further delay is not attributable to the assessee. Applying the decision of this court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd. (2015 (7) TMI 15 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT), to the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal suffers from any legal infirmity warranting interference. - Special Civil Application No. 2577 of 2016, Special Civil Application No. 2578 of 2016, Special Civil Application No. 2579 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 15-3-2016 - Harsha Devani And G. R. Udhwani, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr Varun K Patel, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr S N Divatia, Adv. ORDER ( Per : Honourable Ms. Justice Harsha Devani ) 1. These petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India are directed against the common order dated 18.09.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad in SA No.97/Ahd/2015, SA No. 98/Ahd/2015 and SA No.99/Ahd/2015 filed in the respective appeals for the assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2010- 11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der dated 13.03.2015, the stay granted by earlier order dated 13.08.2014 was extended subject to further payment of ₹ 50,000/- per month till the disposal of assessee s appeal or the expiry of six months, whichever is earlier. Since the appeals were not disposed of within the time stipulated in the stay order, the assessee, after the expiry of six months, moved stay applications for the third time being SA No.97, 98 and 99/Ahd/2015 seeking further extension of the stay of demand. By the impugned order dated 18.09.2015, the Tribunal extended the stay of demand in favour of the assessee subject to payment of ₹ 50,000/- per month (as stipulated in its earlier order) till the disposal of appeal or the expiry of six months, whichever is earlier. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present petitions. 4. Mr. Varun Patel, learned standing counsel for the petitioner, invited the attention of the court to the provisions of section 254 of the Act, and more particularly, to the third proviso to section 254(2A) thereof, which provides that if such appeal is not so disposed of within the period allowed under the first proviso or the period or periods extended or allowed unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ying tactics and misuse the grant of stay of demand. At the same time, a duty is also cast upon the Tribunal to decide and dispose of such appeals in which there is a stay of demand, as early as possible and within the period prescribed under the first proviso and second proviso to section 254(2A) of the Act, i.e. within a maximum period of 365 days. However, one cannot lose sight of the fact that there may be a number of reasons due to which, the Tribunal despite its best efforts may not be in a position to decide and dispose of the appeals. The court held that the object and purpose of section 254(2A) of the Act, is to see that in a case where there is a stay of demand, the appeals are heard at the earliest by the Tribunal and within the stipulated time mentioned therein and all efforts should be made by the Tribunal to see that in case where there is stay of demand, such appeals are heard, decided and disposed of at the earliest and that the stay is not extended mechanically. The court, accordingly, held that the Tribunal has power to extend the stay of demand beyond a period of 365 days; however, the extension of stay beyond a period of total 365 days from the date of grant of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... satisfied that the matter could not be heard and disposed of by reason of the fault of the Tribunal for reasons not attributable to the assessee. 5.2 Reference was made to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent and more particularly, to the order sheet of the Tribunal at page 31 of the case papers, wherein the Tribunal has noted that the assessee had requested for inspection of the case files, assessment records and certified copies of necessary documents and that the learned CIT DR had no objection if the same was permitted. It was pointed out that on 26.02.2016, the matter was adjourned at the request of the DR as the relevant case records were not available on that day. It was submitted that, therefore, the appeals pending before the Tribunal are being adjourned at the instance of the petitioner and not on account of any default on the part of the respondent-assessee. It was further pointed out that despite the fact that there is no default on the part of the respondent assessee, the assessee is required to deposit ₹ 50,000/- per month in the light of the order passed on the stay applications and that the operation of the impugned order would come to an end o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings of the Tribunal to further point out that the appeals have not yet been heard as the Departmental Representative had prayed for an adjournment because the necessary case papers were not available to submit that even further delay is not attributable to the assessee. 9. Applying the decision of this court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd. (supra), to the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal suffers from any legal infirmity warranting interference. 10. In the aforesaid premises, the petitions fail and are, accordingly, dismissed. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent assessee, the appeals are required to be disposed of as expeditiously as possible, inasmuch as, the period for which the stay has been further extended vide the impugned order is likely to lapse and the appeals have not yet been heard. In these circumstances, the Tribunal is requested to dispose of the appeals as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Income Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
