Sony India Private Limited vs Additional Commissioner Of ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 2260 Del

        THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 17.03.2015

+      W.P.(C) 2592/2015 & CM 4638/2015

SONY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED                                       ... Petitioner

                                         versus

ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ... Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner    : Mr Deepak Chopra with Ms Akanksha Choudhary
For the Respondent    : Ms Suruchi Aggarwal

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. 837/Del/2013

before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal being aggrieved by the order

passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel on 19.12.2013. The Tribunal, at

the initial stage, that is, on 03.03.2014, had granted unconditional stay of

the demand.

3. A subsequent order dated 05.09.2014 was passed by the Tribunal

extending the interim stay which it had earlier granted on 03.03.2014. 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 02.03.2015, 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 26.03.2015.

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

unconditional 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



MARCH 17, 2015                             SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
SR