Case Law Details
Vodafone Idea Limited Vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Mumbai)
1. By way of this Stay Application, the assessee seeks extension of a stay against outstanding demand for AY 2006-07.
2. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. We note that vide order dated 08/03/2021, this ITAT has extended the stay for a period of four months or till the disposal of appeal, whichever is earlier. We find that it will be gainful to refer to the stay order passed by this ITAT on 08/03/2021 in this regard. By way of this Stay Application assessee seeks extension of stay of outstanding demand and interest of Rs. 2,67,26,54,239/- for A.Y. 2006-07.
2. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. It transpires that there has been several extension of stay in this case due to the fact that the income tax appeal could not be heard by the ITAT. In the last order of the stay application dated 5.2.2021 the ITAT had passed an interim order noting as under :-
“When this Stay Application came up for hearing Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that 40% of the tax demand out of Rs. 297 Crores was secured as the assessee has paid Rs. 30 Crores and has provided security to the department. It is also stated that bank guaranties were provided to the extent of Rs. 207 Crores. It is stated that appeal was adjourned from time to time either by the Bench or on the request of the Ld.DR and delay is not attributable to the assessee in the appeal getting adjourned from time to time. It is also submitted that Hon’ble Bombay High Court in WP. No. 3606 of 2019 dated 24.01.2020 removed the condition of providing bank guarantees for the A.Y. 2007-08. Counsel requested before us to pass similar order even for this Assessment Year i.e. 2005-06 which is in appeal as the bankers are not extending bank guaranties.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
