9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 657X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2A) . We, considering the facts and circumstances and the stay petition filed by the assessee, hold that the delay in non-disposal of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee. Hence the balance of convenience lies in favour of the assessee for extending the stay as the assessee has complied with the directions of the Tribunal and the Hon ble High Court in payment of instalments. Accordingly, we extend the stay of outstanding demand for a further period of six months from the date of this order or disposal of the appeal whichever is earlier - Decided in favour of assessee. - S.P. Nos.22 to 24/Bang/2020 (In IT(TP)A Nos.2890/Bang/3430/Bang/2018 & IT(IT)A No.97/Bang/2019) - - - Dated:- 17-2-2020 - Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountant Mem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prayed for extension of stay. Whereas the learned Departmental Representative objected for extension of stay and insisted for payment of taxes. The Ld DR further submitted that as per Section 254(2A) of the Act, the stay cannot be extended beyond 365 Days by the Tribunal. In the Rejoinder, the LdAR placed Reliance on Decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court Pepsi Foods (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT 376 ITR 87 (Del) and ITAT, Bangalore Bench Decision in the case of M/s. SAP Labs (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (67 taxmann.com 78) (S.P. No.58/Bang/2014 Dt.8.1.2016) 3. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The learned Authorized Representative emphasized, that the delay in non-disposal of appeal is not attributable to the assessee. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at all achieved by the provision as it stands. On the contrary, the clubbing together of well behaved assesses and those who cause delay in the appeal proceedings is itself violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and has no nexus or connection with the object sought to be achieved. The said expression introduced by the Finance Act, 2008 is, therefore, struck down as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This would revert us to the position of law as interpreted by the Bombay High Court in Narang Overseas (supra), with which we are in full agreement. Consequently, we hold that, where the delay in disposing of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee, the Tribunal has the power to grant extension of stay be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 24. We are also of the view that the decision rendered in the case of Narang Overseas (supra) by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court was prior to the insertion of the 3rd proviso to Sec. 254(2A) of the Act and the reference to the said decision by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. (supra) is only in the context of the legal position that ought to be but for the insertion of the 3rd proviso to Sec. 254(2A) of the Act. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the Assessee, the existence SP No. 58/Bang/2014 of all conditions for grant of stay has already been considered by this Tribunal and at this stage, new conditions cannot be imposed. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the Assessee, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
