Case Law Details
Google LLC Vs JCIT (OSD) (ITAT Bangalore)
The Tribunal has held that the where the delay in the disposal of pending appeal is not attributable to the assessee, the tribunal has power to extend the stay beyond a period of 365 days even after the amendment of the third proviso to section 254(2A) w.e.f 1st October, 2008. Taking into consideration the entire factual position in this regard as discussed above and the further fact that the assessee had already complied with the terms and conditions of the first stay and that the assessee has not adopted a hostile attitude in the disposal of appeal, we grant the extension of stay of demand till the disposal of the present appeal or for a further period of 180 days from the date of this order, whichever is earlier. It is made clear that the extension of stay is granted subject to the condition that the assessee will not seek adjournment without just cause. In case any adjournment is sought without good reasons, the stay granted hereinabove shall automatically revoke and case will be delisted from the priority list and come up for hearing in the normal course.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
By means of the present stay application, the assessee seeks to get the extension of demand already stayed by the tribunal amounting to Rs.5,21,73,617/- for the assessment year 2010-2011 till the final disposal of the appeal.
2. The ld.AR submitted that in this case, the stay was earlier granted by the Tribunal in SP No.55/Bang/2021 vide its order dated 27/08/2021, till the final disposal of the appeal subject to the condition of payment of 20% of the outstanding demand i.e Rs.1,30,43,500/-. The said amount was deposited by the assessee. Post the passing of the stay order by the Tribunal, the appeal of the assessee was listed on four occasions before this Tribunal. The chronology of dates and list of events after 27.08.2021 has been tabulated hereunder for the sake of ready reference:
| Date of Hearing | Remarks |
| 18.10.2021 | Appeal of the Applicant was adjourned to 30.11.2021 behest of the Hon’ble Bench to conduct the hearing of the appeal in physical mode. |
| 30.11.2021 | Appeal of the Applicant was adjourned to 22.12.2021 to conduct the hearing of the appeal in physical mode. |
| 22.12.2021 | Appeal of the Applicant was adjourned to 19.01.2022 at the request of the Ld. Departmental Representative. |
| 19.01.2022 | Appeal of the Applicant was adjourned sine-die due to nonfunctioning of the Hon’ble Bench of the Hon’ble Tribunal. |
Due to non-disposal of the appeal, the assessee again approached the tribunal for the extension of stay.
3. The ld.DR, on the contrary, submitted that the assessee may be directed to pay some part of outstanding demand.
4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. The Tribunal has held that the where the delay in the disposal of pending appeal is not attributable to the assessee, the tribunal has power to extend the stay beyond a period of 365 days even after the amendment of the third proviso to section 254(2A) w.e.f 1st October, 2008. Taking into consideration the entire factual position in this regard as discussed above and the further fact that the assessee had already complied with the terms and conditions of the first stay and that the assessee has not adopted a hostile attitude in the disposal of appeal, we grant the extension of stay of demand till the disposal of the present appeal or for a further period of 180 days from the date of this order, whichever is earlier. It is made clear that the extension of stay is granted subject to the condition that the assessee will not seek adjournment without just cause. In case any adjournment is sought without good reasons, the stay granted hereinabove shall automatically revoke and case will be delisted from the priority list and come up for hearing in the normal course.
5. In the result, the stay petition is allowed.
Order pronounced in court on 25th February, 2022
