TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1310X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stay beyond a period of 365 days, as the reason for delay in disposal of the appeals is not attributable to the assessee, but due to non functioning of the Bench. - S. A. Nos. 08 & 09(Asr)/2016 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 555 & 554(Asr)/2014) - - - Dated:- 29-7-2016 - A. D. Jain (Judicial Member) And T. S. Kapoor (Accountant Member) For the Appellant : Rupesh Jain (Adv.) For the Respondent : Rahul Dhawan (DR) ORDER T. S. Kapoor (Accountant Member) The Stay Applications have been filed by the assessee seeking an extension of stay already granted by the Tribunal. 2. At the outset, the learned AR submitted that originally the stay was granted vide Tribunal order dated 30.09.2014 for a period of 180 days, but the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned DR, on the other hand, submitted that the Hon ble Tribunal cannot extend the stay further as the statue has fixed the number of days for which the Tribunal can grant the stay and in this respect filed written submissions wherein the provisions of Sec. 254(2A) were brought to our notice. The learned DR submitted that extension of stay beyond a period of 365 days is not within the powers of the Tribunal. Reliance in this respect was placed on an order of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ecom Gill Coffee Trading (P.) Ltd.23 taxman.com 235 (Kar.), wherein it has been held that the ITAT cannot extend the interim order of stay beyond the statutory period of 365 days even if the delay in disposing of the appeal is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the ITAT had referred the matter for decision by a Third Member and the appeals were listed for hearing on 10.05.2016, on which date, the matter got adjourned sine die, as is apparent from the note sheet placed in the file in ITA No.554(Asr)/2014. Therefore, the delay in the disposal of the cases cannot be attributed to the assessee. The Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of M/s Carrier Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Limited (supra) has framed the following question of law and has adjudicated the same in favour of assessee: (i) Whether the Hon ble ITAT has acted in contravention of the Second Proviso of Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the combined period of stay has exceeded 365 days ? (ii) Whethe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
