Tribunal extends stay for 2010-11 assessment year, citing compliance and constitutional invalidity.

The Tribunal granted an extension of stay for the assessment year 2010-11, citing compliance with the original stay terms and circumstances not attributable to the assessee. Relying on the judgment declaring the third proviso to section 254(2A) as constitutionally invalid, the Tribunal extended the stay for a further six months or until the appeal's disposal, whichever is earlier. Compliance with the stay conditions and the judgment's impact on the validity of the proviso were pivotal in the decision.

---

---

Issues:
Extension of stay granted by the Tribunal for assessment year 2010-11.
Validity of third proviso to section 254(2A) in light of the judgment in Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (2015) 376 ITR 87 (Del).
Compliance with the terms of stay originally granted.
Granting extension of stay based on compliance and circumstances.

Extension of Stay:
The assessee sought an extension of the stay granted by the Tribunal for the assessment year 2010-11. The conditions stipulated during the original grant of stay were claimed to have been complied with by the assessee. The delay in appeal disposal was attributed to reasons not related to the assessee. The Tribunal noted the judgment in Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (2015) 376 ITR 87 (Del), declaring the third proviso to section 254(2A) as constitutionally invalid. This judgment allowed the Tribunal to extend the stay beyond 365 days if the delay in disposal was not the assessee's fault. Considering the compliance with the original stay terms and the circumstances, the Tribunal granted an extension of stay for a further six months or until the appeal's disposal, whichever is earlier.

Validity of Third Proviso:
The judgment in Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (2015) 376 ITR 87 (Del) was crucial in determining the validity of the third proviso to section 254(2A). The High Court held the proviso as constitutionally invalid, granting the Tribunal the authority to extend stay beyond 365 days if the delay in appeal disposal was not due to the assessee's fault. This judgment played a significant role in the decision to grant the extension of stay in the present case.

Compliance with Stay Terms:
The Tribunal found that the terms of stay originally granted had been duly complied with by the assessee. Despite the appeal not being finally heard due to reasons unrelated to the assessee, compliance with the stay conditions was acknowledged. The Tribunal considered the entirety of the facts and circumstances, leading to the decision to grant the extension of stay for a further period of six months or until the appeal's disposal, whichever is earlier.

Granting Extension of Stay:
Based on the compliance with the original stay terms and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal allowed the stay application, extending the stay for a further period. The decision was made considering the facts presented and in line with the judgment regarding the extension of stay beyond the stipulated period. The order was pronounced in open court on 22.06.2018, with the appeal set for hearing on 19.7.2018.

---

---