Delhi High Court
Schneider Electric India Private ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income ... on 18 May, 2015
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 18.05.2015
+ W.P.(C) 4902/2015
SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC INDIA PRIVATE LTD ... Petitioner
Versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI ... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Pawan Kumar with Mr Prakash Kumar
For the Respondent : Mr Rohit Madan
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
CM 8871/2015
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
WP(C) 4902/2015 & CM 8870/2015
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. 937/Del/2014
before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal being aggrieved by the assessment
order. The Tribunal, at the initial stage, that is, on 13.05.2014, 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 14.11.2014 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 elapsed on 12.05.2015, 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
28.07.2015.
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.
Dasti under the signature of the Court Master.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
MAY 18, 2015 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
SR
