Nartel Networks India ... vs Deputy Director Of Income Tax, ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 2556 Del

        THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 25.03.2015

+      W.P.(C) 3070/2015

NARTEL NETWORKS INDIA INTERNATIONAL INC. ... Petitioner

                                         versus

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2 (1), NEW DELHI
                                                               ... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner    : Mr Amit Shrivastava with Ms Neha Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondent    : Mr N.P. Sahni with Mr Nitin Gulati, Advocates.

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 Mr Sahni on behalf of the

respondent. 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.1087/Del/2014

before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal being aggrieved by the order

passed by the respondent No.1 on 07.01.2014. At the initial stage, the

Tribunal granted unconditional stay of the demand by virtue of its order

dated 28.03.2014 for three months. It was extended from time to time and

the last extension was granted on 14.01.2015 for a further period of three

months.

3. 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 would elapse on 27.03.2015, 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

06.04.2015.

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 2010-11 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 and expect the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal

pending before it expeditiously.

Dasti under the signature of the Court Master.

                                        BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J



MARCH 25, 2015                           SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
st