Separate stay petitions are required for each assessment year, while recovery stay may follow a prima facie case and balance of convenience.

A common stay petition was held not maintainable for demands relating to different assessment years under the same enactment because each year requires separate returns, assessment orders and appeals; separate stay petitions are therefore required for each assessment year. For assessment year 1999-2000, recovery was stayed pending appeal because the Tribunal found a prima facie case, noted the assessee's partial payment and bona fide conduct, and held that the balance of convenience favoured stay.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a common stay petition could be maintained for demands relating to different assessment years under the same enactment. (ii) Whether recovery of demand for assessment year 1999-2000 should be stayed pending disposal of the appeal.

Issue (i): Whether a common stay petition could be maintained for demands relating to different assessment years under the same enactment.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that it has power to regulate its own procedure, but no specific rule permitted a common stay petition for different assessment years. Rule 35A(1)(b) was read as dealing with different enactments, not different years under the same enactment. Considering the scheme of filing separate returns, separate assessment orders, and separate appeals for different assessment years, each assessment year was treated as requiring independent adjudication.

Conclusion: A separate stay petition was required for each assessment year, and the common petition was entertained only for assessment year 1999-2000.

Issue (ii): Whether recovery of demand for assessment year 1999-2000 should be stayed pending disposal of the appeal.

Analysis: The Tribunal found a prima facie case in favour of the assessee in view of the statutory setting and the Madras High Court decision relied upon. It also noted that the assessee had already paid 50% of the demand, had acted under a bona fide belief, and had cooperated with the Department. On the totality of circumstances, the balance of convenience was held to favour grant of stay.

Conclusion: Recovery of demand for assessment year 1999-2000 was stayed until disposal of the appeal.

Final Conclusion: The stay application was disposed of by requiring separate petitions for the remaining years and granting stay of recovery for assessment year 1999-2000.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of a specific enabling provision, a stay petition under the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's procedure must be filed separately for each assessment year, and stay of recovery may be granted where a prima facie case and balance of convenience favour the assessee.

---