New Delhi Television Limited vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 2515 Del

        THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 24.03.2015

+      W.P.(C) 2992/2015

NEW DELHI TELEVISION LIMITED                                   ... Petitioner


                                         versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 17(1),
[EARLIER CIRCLE - 13(1)] & ANR        ... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner  : Mr C. S. Aggarwal, Sr Advocate with Mr Prakash Kumar
For the Respondents : Ms Suruchi Aggarwal

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

                                   JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) CM 5359/2015 Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

WP(C) 2992/2015 & CM 5358/2015

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. 1212/Del/2014

before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal being aggrieved by the

assessment order. The Tribunal, at the initial stage, that is, on 26.03.2014,

had granted stay of the demand which had been raised subsequent to the

said assessment order, subject to certain conditions which have been

fulfilled by the petitioner.

3. A subsequent order dated 10.10.2014 was passed by the Tribunal

extending the interim stay. 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 will elapse on 25.03.2015, 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

22.06.2015.

4. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has approached this

Court by way of this writ petition seeking extension of stay 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. We hope that the Tribunal shall dispose of the above

mentioned appeal pending before it as expeditiously as possible.

Dasti under the signature of the Court Master.

                                         BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J


MARCH 24, 2015                             SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
SR