TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (3) TMI 729
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....October 20123 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). By the common impugned order dated 4 October 2013 the petitioner's application for extending the stay of recovery of demand for assessment years 2006-07 and 2008-09 pending the disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal was dismissed. This in spite of the fact that earlier application for stay was allowed by the Tribunal pending disposal of the appeal and there was no change in circumstances warranting a rejection of the stay application. 3) Briefly, the facts leading to these petitions are that for assessment years 2006-07 and 2008-09 the petitioner had filed appeals to the Tribunal from the orders of the Assessing Officer dated 11 August 2011 for assessment year 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titioner further depositing a sum of Rs.1.00 crore in respect of assessment year 2006-07 and a sum of Rs.2.00 crores in respect of assessment year 2008-09. The petitioner has duly complied with the aforesaid directions. 5) Thereafter, the petitioner on 25 September 2013 filed a further application for renewal of stay before the Tribunal. By impugned order dated 4 October 2013 the Tribunal refused to extend the stay and dismissed the petitioner's' application only on the ground that the petitioner does not have any financial difficulty. 6) The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the stay granted earlier was not extended without considering the prima facie merits of the petitioner's case and also igno....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he period for which a stay can be granted by the Tribunal was only 365 days and this has already expired in the present case. It is further submitted that as the petitioner was not having any financial difficulty it should be directed to pay the entire demand of tax and interest thereon pending the result of the appeals before the Tribunal. 8) We have considered the submissions. We find that the impugned order of the Tribunal has refused to extend the stay not on the ground that it has no power to do so under Section 254 of the Act but only on the ground that the petitioner has no financial difficulty. However, in any view of the matter, we find that the stay has been granted by the Tribunal from 27 July 2012 onwards and the petitioner has ....