Cisco Systems Inc Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore)
The ITAT Bangalore considered the assessee’s miscellaneous application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 seeking rectification of the stay order passed in SA No.20/Bang/2026 dated 16.03.2026. The assessee alleged that the Assessing Officer had disregarded and violated the Tribunal’s stay order concerning recovery of demand for A.Y. 2023-24 and had recovered Rs.205,90,60,377 despite being informed of the stay. The assessee further stated that, despite bringing the alleged violation to the AO’s notice, steps had not been taken to restore the status quo ante or restitute the amounts recovered during the operation of the stay. It sought directions for immediate refund, exemplary costs and such further action as deemed appropriate.
The Departmental Representative submitted that the Revenue was making full efforts to refund the amount as early as possible.
The Tribunal observed that Section 254(2) empowers it to rectify a mistake in its order where such mistake is apparent from the record. In the present case, the Tribunal found that the assessee had not pointed out any error in the stay order dated 16.03.2026. The grievance concerned the alleged recovery by the AO despite the stay order, rather than any mistake in the Tribunal’s own order. The Departmental Representative also assured the Bench that the Revenue was in the process of granting the refund.
As the Tribunal found no mistake in the stay order and noted the Revenue’s assurance regarding refund, it dismissed the miscellaneous application. The order was pronounced in open court on 03.07.2026.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
The assessee by way of this miscellaneous application filed u/s 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) is seeking to rectify the stay order passed by the ITAT in SA No.20/Bang/2026 dated 16.3.2026 on the reasoning that the AO has disregarded and violated the order of this Tribunal by recovering a total amount of Rs.205,90,60,377/- despite being informed of stay order on recovery of demand relating to AY 2023-24. Further, even after such violation was specifically brought to the notice of the AO, no steps have been taken to restore the status quo ante and/or restitution of amounts wrongly/ illegally recovered during the operation of stay. Accordingly, the assessee by way of this miscellaneous application prayed that appropriate directions be issued to the AO to ensure forthwith refund of sums unlawfully recovered during operation of stay order and action be taken against the revenue by imposing exemplary cost and such further action as this Tribunal deems appropriate in the interest of justice.
2. The ld. D.R. vehemently submitted that the revenue is making full efforts to refund the said amount as early as possible.
3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The provisions of section 254(2) of the Act empowers the ITAT to rectify any type of mistake in its order provided it should be apparent from the record. Coming to the present case, admittedly no error has been pointed out by the ld. AR of the assessee in the stay order dated 16.3.2026. The only grievance of the ld. A.R. of the assessee is that the AO had disregarded and violated the stay order of this Tribunal by recovering a total amount of Rs.205,90,60,377/- despite being informed of stay order on recovery of demand relating to AY 2023-24. Before us, the ld. D.R. assured the bench that they are in the process of granting the refund and the same will be accorded as early as possible. This being so, as there is no mistake in the order of stay dated 16.3.2026 and the ld. D.R. has assured that the revenue is in the process of granting the refund, we are inclined to dismiss the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee.
4. In the result, the MA filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 3rd July, 2026
