Back
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BOMBAY
Rajendra Singh, N.V. Vasudevan, JJ.
Lubrizol Corporation, USA -Appellant
Versus
Additional Director of Income-tax, (Intl. Taxation), Rg. 4(1), Mumbai -Respondent
SA NO. 118 (MUM.) OF 2011
Decided On : 31-05-2011
N.V. Vasudevan, Judicial Member. - This an application filed by the assessee praying that the Tribunal be pleased to extent the stay of recovery of outstanding demand which was already granted by this Tribunal by its order dated 24-11-2010.
2. The assessee filed Stay Application No. 122/M/10 praying for an order of stay of recovery of outstanding demand. The Tribunal by its order dated 24-11-2010 granted stay of recovery of outstanding demand subject to certain conditions for a period of 180 days from 24-11-2010 or till disposal of the appeal whichever was earlier. It is not in dispute that the conditions imposed by the Tribunal in the said order have been duly complied with by the assessee. The Tribunal by the said order also granted an out of turn hearing of the appeal and the same was fixed for hearing on 17-1-2011. On 17-1-2011 the case was directed to fixed before "L" Bench on 15-3-2011. On 15-3-2011 the case was argued and the hearing was concluded and the orders to be passed in the appeal is awaited. In the meantime the period for which the stay was granted by the order of the Tribunal dated 24-11-2010 will expire on 23-5-2011.
3. Under the provisions of section 254(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 the Tribunal has the power to grant extension of stay. The delay in disposal of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee. The orders in the appeal are awaited after conclusion of the hearing. There are no change in circumstances that prevailed when the order of stay was granted on 24-11-2010. In these circumstances, we deem it fit and proper to extent the stay of recovery of outstanding demand from 23-5-2011 for a period of 180 days or disposal of the appeal whichever is earlier. The stay application is ordered accordingly.
4. In the result, the stay application is allowed.
The duty of the assessing officer to consider the existence of a prima facie case, financial stringency, and balance of convenience in the matter of granting stay of demand, and the obligation to ass....
Tax authorities cannot recover outstanding tax demands during the pendency of a stay order, and the responsibility to update systems upon granting such stays rests with the department, not the assess....
The court emphasized the need for reasoned consideration, reasonable opportunity of hearing, and judicious exercise of discretion by the Appellate Authority when granting stay of recovery.
The court emphasized the necessity for the petitioners to participate in appeal proceedings actively to uphold stays previously granted under the Income Tax Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
