TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 903X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... into operation. We find that the ld. Authorized Representative (AR) made various propositions to drive home the point that amended proviso to section 254(2A) of the Act could be made applicable only for stay application filed for the first time after 01.04.2020 and the same cannot be made applicable for extension of stay. We find that the ld. DR had filed written submissions which were sent in email on 01.04.2021 wherein he had vehemently argued that the law mandates payment of 20% of the total demand as a pre-condition for granting stay of demand by the Tribunal after the amendment. This mandatory condition cannot be tinkered by the Tribunal in any circumstances. We find that this issue had already been considered by the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bennett Coleman Company Ltd [ 2021 (4) TMI 840 - ITAT MUMBAI] wherein held assessee has no fault for the delay in disposing of the pending appeals. Therefore, we are of the view that assessee deserves to be granted extension of stay for a period of 4 months and accordingly, we grant the same. Thus we find that the assessee is entitled for stay of demand even though it exceeds the period beyond the 36 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eks to keep the demands raised for the respective Assessment Years (AYs) in abeyance till the disposal of the appeals by this Tribunal. 2. Let us take up the stay petition in SA No. 164/Mum/2020 for AY 2009-10. We find that this SA filed by the assessee is for seeking extension of stay already granted by this Tribunal vide its order dated 07.10.2019 wherein this Tribunal had extended the stay for a period of 180 days from 07.10.2019 or till the disposal of the appeal by this Tribunal, whichever is earlier. Thereafter, the stay was extended from time to time by this Tribunal pursuant to the blanket stay order passed by Hon ble Bombay High Court upto January 2021. 3. We find from the chronology of events given vide page nos. 13 to 17 of the stay application preferred by the assessee, that the delay in non-disposal of the appeal was not due to the reason attributable to the assessee as appeals were adjourned from time to time either at the behest of the bench or at the request made by ld. Departmental Representative (DR). Moreover, we also find that the assessee has also paid 20% of the demands raised thereon in the instant case. 4. In view of these facts, we are inclined ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty days from the date of such order 2! subject jo the condition that the assessee deposits not less than twenty per cent of th amount of tax, interest, fee, penalty, or any other sum payable under the provisions of this Act, or furnishes security of equal amount in respect thereof| and the Appellate Tribunal shall dispose of the appeal within the said period of stay specified in that order: Provided further that no extension of stay shall be granted by the Appellate Tribunal, where such appeal is not so disposed of within the said period of stay as specified in the order of stay, unless the assessee makes an application and hag complied with the condition referred to in the first proviso and the Appellate Tribunal is satisfied that the delay in disposing of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee, so however, that the aggregate of the period of stay originally allowed and the period of stay so extended shall not exceed three hundred and sixty-five days and the Appellate Tribunal shall dispose of the appeal within the period or periods of stay so extended or allowed:] Provided also that if such appeal is not so disposed of within the period allowed under the first prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rary and discriminatory and hence struck down as violation of Article-14 of the Constitution of India. 10. We find that the Hon ble Supreme Court read down the 3rd proviso to section 254(2A) as follows: Common order of stay shall stand vacated after the expiry of the period only if the delay in disposing of the appeal is attributable to the assessee 11. We also find that the ld. DR in its written submission had submitted that stay proceedings are procedural in nature and that the mandatory condition prescribed in the Statute of payment of 20% of the demands should be followed without diluting the same. We find that all these points have already been considered by this co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal referred to (supra) and respectfully following the said decision and also the recent decision of Hon ble Supreme Court preferred (supra), we are inclined to grant extension of stay in the instant case for a further period of 180 days or till the disposal of the appeal for this AY, whichever is earlier. The assessee is directed not to take any adjournment on the scheduled date of hearing except due to unavoidable or exceptional circumstances and co-operate in expedit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
