Delhi High Court
United Health Groupinformation ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 10 April, 2015
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 10.04.2015
+ W.P.(C) 3478/2015
UNITED HEALTH GROUPINFORMATION SERVICES PRIVATE
LIMITED ... Petitioner
versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 27(1) NEW
DELHI & ANR. ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Deepak Chopra with Mr Harpreet
Ajmani and Ms Ananya Kapoor, Adv.
For the Respondents : Mr P. Roychaudhuri with Mr Rohit
Madan, Adv.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
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.825/Del/2014 before
the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal being aggrieved by the order passed by
the Dispute Resolution Panel on 31.10.2013. The Tribunal, at the initial
stage, that is, on 31.03.2014, had granted stay of the demand which had
been raised subsequent to the said order of the Dispute Resolution Panel on
condition of the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs 3 crore. The petitioner
had already deposited the said sum and the recovery of the balance demand
was stayed.
3. A subsequent order dated 26.09.2014 was passed by the Tribunal
extending the interim stay which it had earlier granted on 31.03.2014. By
virtue of 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, it is
made clear that the Tribunal has 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 have elapsed on 30.03.2015, the petitioner cannot 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 listed for
hearing but could not be taken up for reasons not attributable to the
petitioner. Now, the appeal is listed for hearing on 16.07.2015.
4. 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 in respect of the assessment year 2009-10 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).
5. 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 is in
the midst of hearing the appeal, 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 under the signature of the Court Master.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
APRIL 10, 2015/SU
