M.S. Sanklecha, J.

1. This Petition under Article 226of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 10th November 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune (Tribunal) on an application for stay under Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(Act).

2. By the impugned order the Petitioner's application for stay of recovery of demand aggregating to Rs. 142.98 Crores was granted on the condition of the Petitioner depositing Rs. 18 Crores in three instalments i.e. Rs. 6 Crores each on 30th November 2017, 30th December 2017 and 15th January 2018 pending the disposal of the Petitioner Appeals for Assessment Years 2009-2010 to 2014-2015 by the Tribunal. The impugned order dated 10th November 2017 also granted an out of turn hearing on 18th January 2018 subject to the payment of Rs. 18 Crores. However impugned order further records that in the absence of complying with the condition of deposit, the stay would stand vacated and the appeals would be heard in the normal course and not on an expeditious basis on 18th January 2018 as a stay granted matter.

3. This Petition was first mentioned on 28th November 2017 seeking an ad-interim relief from depositing the sum of Rs. 18Crores in three instalment as ordered by the Tribunal and a stay of recovery proceedings. However, at that time the Petitioner informed the Court that they are in no position to deposit any amount. Thus this court by order dated 28th November 2017 refused to grant any ad-interim relief and the Petition was directed to be placed on board for admission in its own turn.

4. On 18th December 2017 at 5.00 p.m. this petition was mentioned by the Petitioner for variation of the order dated 28th November 2017 in view of events subsequent to the filing of the Petition viz. the threat of the teaching staff of the Petitioner institution going on strike for non-payment of its salaries. The consequent apprehension of the petitioner that the ongoing Pune University examination in the Engineering courses at which its students are appearing would be affected by the strike resulting in jeopardizing the career of the a large number of its students. In view of the above, we directed the petitioner to serve notice upon the Respondent-Revenue and placed the petition for consideration on board on 19th December, 2017.

5. On 19th December 2017, when the petition was taken up after notice to the Respondent-Revenue, one Mr. Prakash Patil, Constituted Attorney of the Petitioner filed a further affidavit in support of the petition dated 19th December 2017. The affidavit indicated that an amount of Rs. 81 Crores is payable to the teaching and other staff of the petitioner institution. The Affidavit further points out although the teaching staff had gone on strike on 18th December 2017, this has not yet affected the Engineering examination being conducted by Pune University which had already commenced. It is further pointed out that the Petitioner is unable to pay the amounts due to its staff as all its bank accounts had been attached under Section 226 (3) of the Act. It further points out that the amount of Rs. 9.27 Crores is expected to be received from the Social Welfare Department, Pune, State of Maharashtra before 22nd December 2017 and the Petitioner is desirous of paying the sum of Rs. 8 Crores out of Rs. 9.27 Crores to be received from the State Government to its staff in its efforts to persuade them to end the strike. The amount of Rs. 1.27 Crores was sought to be kept by it to meet essential expenses such as electricity, telephone, water, etc. charges. At that time, Mr. Walve, the learned counsel for the Respondent - Revenue informed the petitioner that he would inform his officers not to withdraw an amount of Rs. 9.27 Crores which is expected to be received from the Social Welfare Department, State of Maharashtra in the attached Bank accounts. This he stated only to ensure that the students of the Petitioner institution do not suffer, particularly in view of th