9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 457X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee post November 2018, we are of the considered view that the balance of demand should remain stayed till the appeals are heard and disposed of by the Tribunal. Considering the fact that the demand of tax and interest is substantial and the fact that the assessee complied with the direction issued by the Tribunal, we are of the view that the balance amount as demanded for the seven assessment years shall remain stayed. For the above reasons, we are also of the view that the common order passed by the Tribunal calls for interference. In the result, the above tax case appeals are allowed, the common order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and there will be an order of stay of the remaining amount as demanded from the assessee in respect of all the seven assessment years. The substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee - Tax Case Appeal Nos. 494 & 498 to 500 of 2019 & CMP.Nos.15353, 15366, 15368, 15379 & 15382 to 15384 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 26-7-2019 - Mr.Justice T.S. Sivagnanam And Mrs.Justice V. Bhavani Subbaroyan For the Appellant : Mr.Vijayaraghavan For the Respondent : Mr.M.Swaminathan, SSC and Mrs.V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be stayed till the disposal of the appeals with a further prayer to hear the appeals at the earliest. 5. The petitions filed under Section 254(2) of the Act were pending before the Tribunal since April 2018. In the meanwhile, the assessee filed fresh stay petitions before the Tribunal and they were dismissed by the Tribunal by a common order dated 26.10.2018. Challenging the common order dated 26.10.2018, the assessee filed writ petitions in W.P.No.29564 of 2018 etc. cases. Those writ petitions were heard by a Division Bench of this Court, to which, one of us ( TSSJ) was a party and by a common order dated 12.11.2018, the said writ petitions were dismissed on the ground that the assessee had abruptly stopped complying with the conditional stay order passed by the Tribunal dated 12.1.2018 and that their conduct in filing fresh stay petitions was not appreciated. 6. During the course of hearing of the said writ petitions, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the assessee filed petitions for modification of the order dated 12.1.2018 and that the same were pending before the Tribunal. While refraining from making any observations, this Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in (1969) 71 ITR 0815], in which, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the powers of the Tribunal under Sections 254 and 255 of the Act and held as follows : It may also be that as a matter of practice prevailing in the department the Commissioner or the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner in exercise of administrative powers can give the necessary relief of staying recovery to the assessee but that can hardly be put at par with a statutory power as is contained in Section 220(6) which is confined only to the stage of pendency of an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The argument advanced on behalf of the appellant before us that in the absence of any express provisions in Sections 254 and 255 of the Act relating to stay of recovery during the pendency of an appeal it must be held that no such power can be exercised by the Tribunal, suffers from a fundamental infirmity inasmuch as it assumes and proceeds on the premise that the statute confers such a power on the Income-tax Officer who can give the necessary relief to an assessee. The right of appeal is a substantive right and the questions of fact and law are at large and are open to review ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the common order dated 12.11.2018 in W.P.No.29564 of 2018 etc. cases, preclude us from doing so and we propose to dispose of the appeals. 13. It is brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the appellant that after the said writ petitions were dismissed by a common order dated 12.11.2018, the assessee complied with the direction issued by the Tribunal in its order dated 12.1.2018, though not within the time stipulated therein. As of now, the entire demand of tax namely ₹ 22,305.89 lakhs for all the seven assessment years has been paid. 14. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue points out that though the assessee claims to have paid the entire demand of tax, the interest amount still remains unpaid. 15. It is true that the demand for interest and the demand for payment of penalty cannot be placed on the same pedestal, as, in several Statutes, payment of interest would be automatic. However, considering the fact that the entire demand of tax has been paid by the assessee post November 2018, we are of the considered view that the balance of demand should remain stayed till the appeals are he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
