Case Law Details
In the present case, the petitioner filed the appeal before the ITAT being aggrieved by the order passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel. The Tribunal at the initial stage granted stay of demand on 21.03.2014 with the precondition of depositing a part of demand. The petitioner deposited Rs.70 Lacs and recovery of balance demand was stayed. Subsequently interim order passed on 21.03.2014 was extended by the Tribunal vide order dated 26.09.2014.
Period of 365 days as mentioned in third proviso to section 254(2A) was going to expire on 20.03.2015. By virtue of Decision in CIT vs. Maruti Suzuki (India) Limited, it was made clear that Tribunal has no authority to extend the period of stay beyond 365 days. Meanwhile the case of assessee was listed for hearing but could not be taken up for reasons not attributable to the petitioner and the appeal was listed for hearing on 29.05.2015.
In the circumstances, mentioned above, the petitioner approached the court by way of writ petition seeking grant of stay of recovery of balance amount till the disposal of appeal by ITAT to be heard on 29.05.2015.
Held that it is settled law that there is no bar for grant of such a relief if the Court is of the opinion that the circumstances and the ends of justice so warrant. Since the petitioner has already been granted conditional stay by the Tribunal in respect of the said appeal and that the Tribunal is in the midst of hearing of appeal, it would be in the interest of justice that the stay order granted by the Tribunal should continue till the disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal.
In exercise of its jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution, the Court extended the stay initially granted by the Tribunal till the disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal.
Similar view was also taken in below case decided by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Nartel Networka India International Inc Vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax, Writ Petition (C) 3070/2015.
