2012 (11) TMI 345

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the Appellant. Jasdeep Singh for the Respondent. ORDER Chandramohan Garg, Judicial Member - These stay applications have been filed by the assessee praying for extension of stay of outstanding demand from AY 2000-01 to 2006-07. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to these stay applications are that the assessee was granted stay of collection of taxes by this Bench on 12.03.2012 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....assessee submitted that these appeals have already been heard and awaiting adjudication and the outstanding demand for AY 2007-08 has been stayed in stay application no. 135/D/2012 (In ITA No. 5343/D/2010) by order dated 9-7-2012 for a further period of six months from the date of order or till disposal of appeal, whichever is earlier. 5. Ld. DR placed his reliance on the judgment dated 5-7-201....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of appeal whichever is earlier and this appeal for AY 2007-08 along with seven appeals related to these stay applications in hand have been heard. He has no serious objection in extension of stay. 7. The assessee's representative relied on the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Ronuk Industries Ltd. [2011] 333 ITR 99, wherein it was held that the stay of outstanding demand can ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....beyond the period of 365 days even after the amendment of third proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Act w.e.f. 1.10.2008. 8. On careful consideration of submissions and facts and circumstances of the case in the light of citations placed before us, at the outset, we observe that ITAT Mumbai Special Bench in the case of Narang Overseas (P) Ltd. v. Asstt. CTT [2008] 111 ITD 1 (Mum.) (SB) held that ....