Case Law Details
United Spirits Ltd. Vs JCIT (ITAT Bangalore)
The issue under consideration is whether the second extension of stay of demand against ITAT appeal will be allowed to the assessee?
ITAT states that, the delay in not disposing of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee. There is no change in the facts and circumstances since the date of granting last stay. Accordingly, they are of the view that the balance of convenience is in favour of the assessee in extending the stay, even though this is second extension. Accordingly, ITAT are of the view that petition of the assessee seeking extension of the stay deserves to be allowed. Accordingly they extend the stay of collection of outstanding demand for further period of 6 months from the date of this order or till the date of disposal of the appeal, whichever period expires earlier.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
The assessee has filed this stay application seeking extension of the stay granted by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal, vide its order dated 25/1/2020 passed in S.P No.2701/Bang/2017 for assessment year 2013-14.
2. The ld counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the last stay order was passed by the co-ordinate bench extending the stay granted earlier. At that point of time, the appeal had been posted for hearing on 18/11/2019. He submitted that the Bench adjourned the appeal on 18-11-2019, since the appeal of the earlier year i.e asst. Year 2012-13 having similar grounds was already heard by ITAT and order was awaited. The ld AR submitted that the appeal was posted for hearing on 19/2/2020 and the appeal was adjourned as orders for asst. year 2012-13 was still awaited. Ld.AR submitted that the matter was posted for hearing on 7/7/2019. He submitted that appeal was adjourned. Since it was posted for virtual hearing in the wake of COVID-19 pandemic. And that the matter was adjourned to 5/8/2020 as the appeal could not be heard on virtual hearing due to complex issues that were not common with issues considered by this Tribunal in asst. year 2012-13. Now Ld. Counsel submitted that the appeal adjourned to 2/12/2020 for the same reason. He also submitted that there is no change in facts and circumstances under which the earlier stay was granted. He accordingly submitted that the delay in not disposing of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee and accordingly prayed for extension of the stay.
3. We heard the ld DR and perused the record. We noticed that the delay in not disposing of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee. There is no change in the facts and circumstances since the date of granting last stay. Accordingly, we are of the view that the balance of convenience is in favour of the assessee in extending the stay, even though this is second extension. We derive support from the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsi Foods (P) Ltd (376 ITR 87) and the decision rendered by the co-ordinate bench in the case of SAP labs (I) P Ltd (67 taxmann.com 78). Accordingly, we are of the view that petition of the assessee seeking extension of the stay deserves to be allowed. Accordingly we extend the stay of collection of outstanding demand for further period of 6 months from the date of this order or till the date of disposal of the appeal, whichever period expires earlier. We make it clear that the assessee shall not seek adjournment on the date of hearing without reasonable cause, failing which the present stay order shall be subjected to review by the division bench hearing the appeal.
4. In the result, the stay petition of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 21st August, 2020.
