Advocates:
['M/S K SENGUTTUVAN', '', 'M SUBATHRA', 'V VEERARAGHAVAN', 'CHENNAI']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 21.02.2019

CORAM

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

Tax Case Appeal No. 111 of 2019

And

C.M.P.Nos. 2955 & 2958 of 2019

M/s. Mosmetro India Private Limited

88/150, Dharma Towers, Second Floor,

Room No. 9, Nelson Manikam Road,

Choolaimedu, Chennai – 94.

... Appellant/Appellant

Vs.

Assessing Officer,

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,

Corporate Circle – 4(1)

121, MG Road, Nungambakkam,

Chennai – 34, Tamil Nadu.

...Respondent/Respondent

-----

Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income

Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate

Tribunal, Madras 'D' Bench, Chennai, dated 21.12.2018 made

in SP.No. 380/CHNY/2018 in I.T.(TP).A.No. 79/Chny/2018.

Against the order of the Assistant Commisioner of

Income Tax dated 29.10.2018 in PAN/GIR NO. AAHCM57091V in

the Assessment year 2014-2015 in the Assessment year 2014-

2015.

Against the order of the ministry of Finance Income

Tax Department dated 05.09.2018 in the Assessment year

2014-2015.

Against the order of the Deputy Commisioner of Income

Tax dated 20.12.2017 in the Assessment year 2014-2015.

Against the order of the Deputy Commisioner of Income

Tax dated 30.10.2017 in the Assessment year 2014-2015.

F NO. M505/TPO 3(1)

-----

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

For Appellant : Mr.K.Senguttuvan

For Respondent : M/s. Karthik Renganathan

Senior Standing Counsel

-----

J U D G M E N T

(Delivered by DR.VINEET KOTHARI, J.)

This Appeal has been filed by the Assessee under

Section 260-A of the Act against the interim order passed

by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 21.12.2018

rejecting the stay application filed by the Assessee in a

pending appeal for the Assessment Year 2014-2015. The

outstanding demand against the Assessee Company for the

Assessment Year 2014 is said to be Rs.11,29,18,300/-.

2.

The learned counsel for the Assessee urged before

us that an Appeal under Section 260-A of the Act lies

before the High Court against 'every order' passed by the

Appellate Tribunal, if the High Court is satisfied that the

case involves a substantial question of law. He has

relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of Rajkumar Shivhare Vs. Assistant Director,

Directorate of Enforcement reported in 2010 (253) E.L.T. 3

(S.C.) and the case of Metal Weld Electrodes Vs. CESTAT,

Chennai reported in 2014 (299) E.L.T. 3 (Mad.) and

submitted that the words 'any' or 'every' would include

even the interlocutory orders and therefore, the present

Appeal is maintainable.

3.

The learned counsel for the Revenue has supported

the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal.

4.

Having heard the learned counsels for the

parties, though we are of the opinion that such an Appeal

from 'every' order passed by the Tribunal in a pending

Appeal can be filed before the High Court under Section

260-A of the Act but only if the case involves a

substantial question of law.

The existence of a

substantial question of law in the Appeal filed by any of

the parties, namely, Assessee or Revenue is necessary to

invoke the jurisdiction under Section 260-A of the Act.

The interlocutory orders passed by the Tribunal on a stay

application rejecting the stay application filed by the

Assessee in the present case, prima facie case does not

give rise to any substantial question of law as it is

firstly a discretionary order and the grant of a stay or

refusal thereof or grant of stay partially, depends upon

the facts of each case before the Tribunal. The parameters

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

for grant of a stay or otherwise will have to be traced

back to the provision under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC which

requires any Appellate Court, Tribunal or Authority to deal

with a stay application o