2015 (7) TMI 902

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2,654,239/-. 2. Thereafter, the stay has been extended from time to time by this Tribunal and finally it was extended vide order dated 18.07.2014 in SA No. 117/Mum/2014. 3. We have heard the Ld. AR as well as Ld. DR and considered the relevant material on record. The Ld. Authorized Representative has pointed out that after the last extension of stay granted vide order dated 18.07.2014, the matter could not be heard because either the deparment sought adjournments or the bench did not hear the matter, therefore, the delay in hearing and disposal of appeal is not attributable to the assessee. 4. On the other hand, Shri Girish Dave, Ld. Counsel for the revenue has objected the extension of stay and contended that for the A.Y. 2009-10,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rt, vide order dated 23rd June 2014, in W.P. no.2425/2013, has held that the variation / modification in the terms of earlier stay ranted by the Tribunal should not be disturbed as there has been no change in the facts and circumstances, when the original stay was granted. Looking to the prima-facie case of the assessee that the issue involved has not been settled finally against the assessee and also that there is no material change in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the stay should be extended. We also find that the assessee has never sought any adjournment during the hearing of the appeal and it is only the Department which has been seeking adjournments from time to time. There is no fault on the part ....