TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 900X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been seeking adjournments from time to time - There is no fault on the part of the assessee for conducting the appeal – thus, the outstanding demand for the AYs is stayed for a further period of six months or passing of the order by the Tribunal in the appeal, whichever is earlier – Stay granted. - S.A. No. 117/Mum./2014, ITA no. 216/Chd./2011 - - - Dated:- 18-7-2014 - Shri Sanjay Arora And Shri Amit Shukla,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri Tarun Gulati For the Respondent : Shri Sanjeev Jain ORDER Per Amit Shukla, J.M. The assessee, by way of this stay application, seeks grant of extension of stay of outstanding demand of ₹ 267,26,54,239, which was originally granted by the Tribunal vide order dated 7th Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion in the conditions of the stay already granted by the Tribunal was not at all justified and accordingly, the order of the Tribunal dated 20th September 2013, was modified to do away with the variation made in the terms of the stay granted by the Tribunal originally. The present stay application has been filed by the assessee on 28th March 2014 and the stay application first came up for hearing on 4th April 2014. Since then, several adjournments have been given either awaiting the outcome of the High Court order in the Writ Petition or on the request of the Department that Special Counsel would be appointed. On 4th July 2014, the Department filed an application seeking adjournment on the ground that special counsel is being appointed and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in May 1995 and cellular services in November 1995, which fell in the financial year 1995-96. It also obtained necessary clearance from the Department of Telecommunication and accordingly, claimed eligibility for deduction under section 80IA. From the assessment year 2005-06, the assessee had positive gross taxable income and from that year it claimed deduction of 100% of profit/gain on its Cellular undertaking under section 80IA. For the assessment year 2006-07, the assessee in its return of income filed on 30th November 2005, declared nil income under the normal provisions of the Act and taxable book profit of ₹ 366,30,21,560 under the MAT provisions of section 115JB. In the draft assessment order for the impugned assessment year, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing demand, the Tribunal had directed the assessee to pay a sum of ₹ 30 crores and the balance outstanding demand of ₹ 267.26 crores was stayed, subject to collateral security as mentioned above. In the present application, the assessee has sought extension of stay, which was granted earlier. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the Writ Petition cited supra, which was filed by the assessee has modified the order of the Tribunal dated 20th September 2013, whereby variation was made in the terms of the stay. The relevant observations and the directions of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in this regard are as under:- 4) We find that the impugned order dated 20 September 2013 making variation in the conditions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, the stay granted earlier should be extended without any further modification, as there has been no apparent change in the facts and circumstances of the case when the earlier stay was granted. 8. The learned Senior Departmental Representative, on the other hand, submitted that there has been major change in the facts and circumstances since the passing of earlier stay order inasmuch as now for the assessment year 2005-06, which was set aside by the Tribunal, the Assessing Officer has rejected the assessee s claim for deduction under section 80IA on very cogent reasons. For the assessment year 2006-07 also, the assessment order has been the subject matter of revision under section 263 and now as a result of order passed under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, he submitted that already the appeal has been posted for final hearing, therefore, the stay should be continued as the decision of the other High Court under the third proviso to section 254(2A), i.e., stay cannot be extended beyond the period of 365 days, is not applicable in the jurisdiction of Mumbai, as the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in many cases has held that the stay can be extended even beyond the period of 365 days if there is no default on the part of the assessee. 10. After hearing both the parties, we find that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, vide order dated 23rd June 2014, in W.P. no.2425/2013, has held that the variation / modification in the terms of earlier stay granted by the Tribunal should not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
