2019 (5) TMI 1931 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Dismisses Revenue's Applications Under Income Tax Act Section 254(2A)

Asst. CIT- 7 (1) (1), Mumbai Versus Goldman Sachs (India) Securities Private Limited

The Tribunal dismissed both Miscellaneous Applications filed by the Revenue under Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act. The first application was deemed ... Rectification application - Stay of recovery of outstanding demand - Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue u/s 254(2A) for recall of the stay order passed - HELD THAT:- As perused the provisions of section 254(2A) of the Act. We have also deliberated on the case law relied by ld. representative of the parties. We have noted that appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 [2018 (12) TMI 1937 - ITAT MUMBAI] has already been adjudicated by this Tribunal.Therefore, Miscellaneous petition has become infructuous and thereby dismissed. Issue of exceeding 365 days before the Tribunal at the time of extension of the stay - As decided in M/S. PIRAMAL ENTERPRISE LTD. [2019 (3) TMI 1319 - ITAT MUMBAI] the Legislature was conscious of the fact that there are circumstances where stay has to be granted beyond six months as the facts requires in the exceptional cases. We have gone through the said order and noticed that no such plea was placed before the Tribunal at the time of hearing or from record we could not trace such arguments or plea. Hence taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the Hon'ble High Court has struck down the expression, 'even if the delay in disposing of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee' as substituted by 3rd proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Act and taken a view that the Tribunal has power to extend stay even beyond 365 days and even after the substitution of 3rd proviso to Section 254(2A) Considering the decision of Tribunal on similar Miscellaneous Application and respectfully following the same, the present Miscellaneous Application is dismissed. Issues:1. Stay order exceeding 365 days for outstanding demand in two Miscellaneous Applications filed by the Revenue under Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Maintainability of the Miscellaneous Applications based on the duration of stay and adjudication status of the appeals.3. Interpretation of the third proviso to section 254(2A) regarding the period of stay and its implications.4. Application of relevant case laws and legal precedents in deciding the fate of the Miscellaneous Applications.Detailed Analysis:1. The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai dealt with two Miscellaneous Applications filed by the Revenue under Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking the recall of stay orders exceeding 365 days for outstanding demands in two separate cases for Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2010-11.2. The Revenue contended in the applications that the stay orders should be vacated as they exceeded the prescribed 365-day limit. However, the counsel for the assessee argued that one of the appeals had already been adjudicated, rendering the first Miscellaneous Application infructuous, and the second application was not maintainable as the stay had been extended until the disposal of the appeal.3. The Tribunal considered the provisions of section 254(2A) of the Act and the arguments presented by both parties. The Revenue relied on the third proviso to section 254(2A) and cited a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the automatic restart of cases after a certain period of stay.4. The Tribunal referred to a similar case where the co-ordinate bench had dismissed a Revenue's Miscellaneous Application based on legal precedents and interpretations of relevant case laws. The Tribunal highlighted the power of the Tribunal to extend stay beyond 365 days in exceptional cases, as recognized by various court decisions.5. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the first Miscellaneous Application as infructuous due to the adjudication of the appeal and dismissed the second Application based on the legal principles established in previous judgments. The decision was made in line with the legal positions discussed and the interpretation of the provisions of the Act and relevant case laws.In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis and application of legal principles led to the dismissal of both Miscellaneous Applications filed by the Revenue, based on the specific circumstances and legal precedents governing the duration of stay orders for outstanding demands under the Income Tax Act.