Honda Cars India Limited vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax & ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 3208 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                      Judgment delivered on: 21.04.2015

+       W.P.(C) 3769/2015

HONDA CARS INDIA LIMITED                                       .... Petitioner

                              versus

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR .... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner            : Mr Amit Shrivastava
For the Respondents           : Mr Rohit Madan with Mr Akash Vajpai


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 we are taking up this matter

for disposal at the first instance itself.

2. The petitioner has filed an appeal being ITA No. 2056/Del/2014 before the

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, being aggrieved by the order passed by the

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), on 31.03.2014. The Assessing Officer

had raised a demand, which was reduced in appeal by the Commissioner of

Income Tax (Appeals), to approximately Rs 327 crores. At the stage, prior to the

decision by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the petitioner had

voluntarily deposited a sum of Rs 50 crores. The said deposit was made before the

Assessing Officer. Thereafter, the petitioner had approached this Court by way of

WP(C) 5405/2013, in which an order was passed on 30.08.2013, whereby the

petitioner was required to deposit a further sum of Rs 100 crores. That deposit was

also made and the writ petition was finally disposed of on 04.09.2013. All this

happened before the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

3. As noted above, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has allowed

some of the grounds raised by the petitioner and reduced the demanded amount to

approximately Rs 327 crores. Against this, the petitioner has filed the above

mentioned appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. On 07.04.2014,

notice was issued by the Tribunal to the respondents in the said appeal. On

11.04.2014, the Tribunal, in view of the fact that the petitioner had already

deposited a sum of Rs 150 crores, granted stay of the balance amount for a period

of six months or till the disposal of the appeal, whichever was earlier. Thereafter,

the stay was extended by the Tribunal on 29.10.2014 for a further period of six

months. By virtue of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of

CIT v. Maruti Suzuki (India) Limited: WP(C) 5086/2013 decided on 21.02.2014,

it has been 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. The period

of 365 days has elapsed on 10.04.2015 inasmuch as the initial stay was granted on

11.04.2014. Therefore, the petitioner cannot approach the Tribunal for any further

extension of stay. After the extension of stay granted by the Tribunal, the matter

has been listed on several occasions, but could not be taken up for hearing for

reasons not attributable to the petitioner. Now, the appeal is listed for hearing on

19.05.2015.

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. In Maruti Suzuki (supra) itself, it has been held that while the Tribunal

cannot grant any extension of stay beyond a period of 365 days, there is no bar for

the grant of such a relief by the High Court, if it is of the opinion that the

circumstances and the ends of justice so warrant.

5. In the circumstances narrated above, we feel that the petitioner should be

granted the benefit of continuation of the stay which had been granted by the

Tribunal. This would be in the interest of justice.

6. Consequently, we direct that the stay order granted by the Tribunal will

continue till the disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal. We also request the

Tribunal to expedite the hearing of the appeal so that the same can be disposed of

at an early date.

The writ petition stands allowed to the aforesaid extent.

Dasti under the signature of the Court Master.

                                           BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J



APRIL 21, 2015                                SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
SR