9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 657X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2890/Bang/3430/Bang/2018 & IT(IT)A No.97/Bang/2019 for extension of stay of outstanding demand. 2. The learned Authorized Representative submitted that originally the stay was granted by the Tribunal in S.P. Nos.286/Bang/2018 and 18 and 19/Bang/2019 vide order dt.21.02.2019 subject to payment of Rs. 475 Crores in four installments. However, the revenue has challenged the above stay order passed by the Tribunal before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, and Hon'ble High Court has reduced the payment in 3 installments and the assessee has duly complied with the directions of the Hon'ble High Court in paying the installments. Subsequently, the stay order was extended in S.P. Nos.238, 239 & 240/Bang/2019 Dt.9.8.2019 for a period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laid down in 3rd proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). We consider appropriate to extract below the observations of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Pepsi Foods (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (Supra) : " 24. Furthermore, the petitioners are correct in their submission that unequals have been treated equally. Assessees who, after having obtained stay orders and by their conduct delay the appeal proceedings, have been treated in the same manner in which assessees, who have not, in any way, delayed the proceedings in the appeal. The two classes of assessees are distinct and cannot be clubbed together. This clubbing together has led to hostile discrimination against the assessees to whom the delay is not attr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consideration to the rival submissions. We are of the that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Ecom Gill Coffe (supra) has not dealt with the constitutional validity of the 3rd proviso to Sec. 254(2A) of the Act. The Hon'ble Court only held that Tribunal has no power to extend stay beyond a period of 365 days in view of the clear language of 3rd proviso to Sec. 254(2A) of the Act and that statutory tribunals have to follow the statutory provisions as it is. As rightly contended on behalf of the Assessee when once the 3rd proviso has been held to be unconstitutional by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court (the decision of Delhi High Court is later in point of time to that of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court) then the 3rd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f recovery of outstanding demand for a period of 180 days from this day or till disposal of the appeal of the Assessee by the tribunal, which ever is earlier. Hence, we are unable to agree with the contentions of Ld DR. 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 whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
