Xl India Business Services ... vs Income Tax Officer & Anr.
2015 Latest Caselaw 2473 Del

        THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 23.03.2015

+      W.P.(C) 2956/2015 & CM 5280/2015
XL INDIA BUSINESS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED                      ... Petitioner

                                         versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER & 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.1427/Del/2014

before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal being aggrieved by the order

passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel on 20.12.2013. The Tribunal, at

the initial stage, that is, on 21.03.2014, 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

Rs70,00,000/-. 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 21.03.2014. 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 20.03.2015, 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 29.05.2015.

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. 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



MARCH 23, 2015 /st                      SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J