9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1062X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in the facts and circumstances of the case as it existed when the tribunal granted an order of stay. In these circumstances, we are of the view that there should be an order of stay for a period of 6 months from today or till the disposal of the appeal of the assessee, whichever is earlier. - SP No. 8/Bang/2019 - - - Dated:- 18-1-2019 - SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI A.K.GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Applicant : Shri K.P Kumar, Sr. Advocate For The Respondent : Dr. P.V Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR) ORDER Per N.V. Vasudevan, Vice President This is an application filed by the asessee praying for an order extending the order of stay of recovery of outstanding demand passed by the Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earing on 02 February 2018 (in SP No.29/Bang/2018). The Hon'ble Tribunal after hearing the matter considered this case as fit case and has granted stay of demand to the petitioner vide order dated 05 February 2018 and the case on merits for the said year was scheduled on 21 February 2018. The Copy of order is enclosed vide Appendix I. 16. On 21 February 2018, the Hon'ble Tribunal has heard the merits of the case. Subsequently, the Hon'ble Tribunal scheduled another hearing on 15 June 2018 for certain clarification. On 15 June 2018, the petitioner was ready to take-up the case, however, the Hon'ble Tribunal has adjourned the case to 22 June 2018. Further, on 22 June 2018, the Hon'ble Tribunal has adjourned the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar that the delay in non disposal of the appeal is not attributable to any default on the part of the assessee. The law is by now well settled that if the delay in non-disposal of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee, then the Tribunal has power to extend the period of stay even beyond the time limit laid down in third proviso to section 254(2A) of the Act. Reference may be made to the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsi Foods (P) Ltd. v. ACIT, 376 ITR 87 (Del) which was followed by the ITAT Bangalore Bench in the case of M/s. SAP Labs (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT, 67 taxmann.com 78. There are no change in the facts and circumstances of the case as it existed when the tribunal granted an order of stay. In th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
