TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... GARG, JJ. Salil Kapoor, Ankit Gupta and Vikas Jain for the Appellant. Jasdeep Singh for the Respondent. ORDER Chandramohan Garg, Judicial Member - These stay applications have been filed by the assessee praying for extension of stay of outstanding demand from AY 2000-01 to 2006-07. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to these stay applications are that the assessee was granted stay of collection of taxes by this Bench on 12.03.2012 for a period of six months or till the disposal of relevant appeals, whichever is earlier. We also observe that at the first occasion, stay was granted by order dated 4.3.2011 for six months and, thereafter, it was extended for another six months through order dated 16-9-2011 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. The ld. DR also submitted that in ITA No.5343/D/2010, stay of outstanding demand has been extended by order of this Bench dated 09.07.2012 for a period of six months from the date of order or till the disposal of appeal whichever is earlier and this appeal for AY 2007-08 along with seven appeals related to these stay applications in hand have been heard. He has no serious objection in extension of stay. 7. The assessee's representative relied on the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Ronuk Industries Ltd. [2011] 333 ITR 99, wherein it was held that the stay of outstanding demand can be extended beyond a period of 365 days. As per the provisions of Section 254(2A) of the Act, notwithstanding the amendment in the thir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te that the delay in disposal of appeals is not exclusively attributable to the assessee. Therefore, we find merit in the argument of the ld. counsel for the assessee that in these circumstances, the grant of stay beyond 60 days would be in the interest of natural justice as held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ronuk Industries Ltd. (supra) and by the Special Bench of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Tata Communications Ltd. (supra). 10. We also observe that the stay of outstanding demand of tax for AY 2007-08 has already been extended up to 9.1.2013 or till the disposal of the appeal whichever is earlier and this appeal along with other seven appeals of the assessee related to present stay applications have been heard and these ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
