Delhi High Court
Crm Services India Pvt Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner Of ... on 11 July, 2014
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 11.07.2014
+ W.P.(C) 4229/2014 & CM 8493/2014
CRM SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD ... Petitioner
versus
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Ms Kavita Jha with Ms Bhoomika Choudhury and
Mr Vaibhav Kulkarni
For the Respondent : Mr Abhishek Singh Baghel with Mr Balbir Singh
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents. Since the facts are not in dispute, the matter is
taken up for hearing at the first instance itself.
2. The petitioner has filed an appeal being ITA No. 5930/Del/2012
before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal being aggrieved by the order
passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel on 29.10.2012. The Tribunal, at
the initial stage, that is, on 09.01.2013, had granted stay of the demand
which had been raised subsequent to the said order of the Dispute
Resolution Panel on the condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of
Rs 25 lacs. The petitioner had deposited the said sum of Rs 25 lacs and the
recovery of the balance demand was stayed.
3. A subsequent order dated 29.07.2013 was passed by the Tribunal
extending the interim stay which it had earlier granted on 09.01.2013. This
was further continued by the Tribunal by virtue of an order dated
07.02.2104 upto 07.07.2014. In the meanwhile, the decision of a Division
Bench of this Court in CIT v. Maruti Suzuki (India) Limited: [WP(C)
5086/2013] decided on 21.02.2014 was rendered. By virtue of that
decision, it was made clear that the Tribunal had no authority to extend the
period of stay beyond a period of 365 days from the initial date of grant of
stay. As 365 days had elapsed since 09.01.2013, when the initial stay was
granted, the petitioner could not approach the Tribunal for any further
extension of stay. It is also to be noted that, in the meanwhile, the
petitioner's said appeal before the Tribunal was heard on 08.05.2014 and
orders were reserved. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has
approached this Court by way of this writ petition seeking grant of stay of
recovery of the balance amount of Rs 1,91,03,892/- pursuant to the notice
dated 29.10.2012 in respect of the assessment year 2008-09 till the disposal
of the appeal by the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
placed before us several orders passed by this court, whereby this Court has
extended the stay initially granted by the Tribunal till the disposal of the
appeal by the Tribunal in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution. In fact, 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. This has also been stated clearly in Maruti
Suzuki (supra).
4. We feel that since the petitioner had already been granted conditional
stay by the Tribunal in respect of the said appeal and that the Tribunal has
already heard the matter finally and has reserved orders, it would be in the
interest of justice that the stay order granted by the Tribunal is continued
till the disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly.
The writ petition stands disposed of.
Dasti.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
JULY 11, 2014 SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
SR
