Facts of the
Case
The petitioner, Sony India
Private Limited, had filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
(ITAT) against the order passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel dated
19.12.2013. During the pendency of the appeal, the Tribunal initially granted an
unconditional stay of demand on 03.03.2014.
Subsequently, the Tribunal
extended the interim stay by order dated 05.09.2014. However, as per the
judicial precedent in CIT v. Maruti Suzuki (India) Limited, the
Tribunal’s authority to extend stay could not exceed 365 days from the initial
date of grant of stay.
Since the period of 365 days
expired on 02.03.2015, and the appeal before the Tribunal was still pending
(for reasons not attributable to the petitioner), Sony India approached the
Delhi High Court seeking continuation of stay on recovery proceedings until
disposal of the appeal.
The appeal was already fixed for
hearing before the Tribunal on 26.03.2015.
Issues
Involved
Whether the ITAT can extend stay
of tax demand beyond 365 days?
Whether the High Court can
exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 to continue the stay after expiry of
365 days?
Whether recovery proceedings
should continue when delay in disposal of appeal is not attributable to the
assessee?
Petitioner’s
Arguments
The petitioner contended that the
Tribunal had already granted an unconditional stay in the appeal.
The appeal remained pending for
reasons beyond the control of the petitioner.
The petitioner relied upon
several orders of the Delhi High Court where stay was extended by the High
Court after expiry of the Tribunal’s statutory power.
Since the appeal was already fixed for hearing shortly, coercive recovery would cause irreparable prejudice.
Respondent’s
Arguments
The Revenue relied upon the
statutory limitation under Section 254(2A), under which the Tribunal could not
extend stay beyond 365 days.
After expiry of the statutory period, the Tribunal became functus officio regarding stay extension.
Court
Findings / Order
The Delhi High Court held that:
The Tribunal has no authority to
extend the stay beyond 365 days from the initial grant of stay.
However, the High Court, in
exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226, can grant
continuation of stay where justice so demands.
Where delay in disposal of appeal
is not attributable to the assessee, the assessee should not be prejudiced.
Since the petitioner had already
been granted unconditional stay and the Tribunal was in the process of hearing
the appeal, continuation of stay was justified.
Accordingly, the High Court directed that the stay granted by the Tribunal shall continue till disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal. The writ petition was disposed of.
Important
Clarification
This judgment clarifies that
although the ITAT’s statutory power to grant or extend stay is capped at 365
days under Section 254(2A), the constitutional powers of the High Court under
Article 226 remain unaffected.
Thus, in deserving cases, the
High Court can protect the assessee against recovery proceedings even after
expiry of the statutory stay period.
Sections
Involved
Section
254(2A), Income Tax Act, 1961 – Power of
ITAT to grant stay and limitation for extension of stay
Article 226,
Constitution of India – Writ
jurisdiction of High Court
Assessment Year Involved: AY 2009-10
Link to
Download the Order https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2015:DHC:2532-DB/BDA17032015CW25922015.pdf
Disclaimer
This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment