TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 1507
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tended the stay of the demand in respect of the appeals pending for the Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2012-13, for further period of six months or the earlier disposal of the Appeals. These were in line with its earlier order dated 27 February 2015. 2. The grievance of the petitioner with the impugned order is that in terms of the third proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Act, the Tribunal has no power under the Act to extend the stay of demand in the appeals pending before it beyond the period of 365 days. 3. We find that the impugned order being concious of the provisions of Section 254(2A) of the Act, granted the extension in view of the Court's orders in Narang Overseas (P) Ltd. Vs. ITAT, (2007) 295 ITR 22 and Commissioner of In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Act was introduced. This is evident from all the orders referred to in para 3 hereinabove. The Revenue has not filed appeal against the above orders of this Court in the context of the substituted third proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Act. Nothing has been shown to us as to why when the Revenue has accepted the above orders, a different stand is taken in this appeal. 6. In any case the ratio of the decision of this Court in "Narang Overseas (P) Ltd." (supra) would apply even to the substituted third proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Act. The basis of the decision in "Narang Overseas (P) Ltd." (supra) was on the basis of the following:- "We have considered the object of the amendment and before answering the issue, let us conside....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar to and identical with the powers of an appellate Court under the CPC. The Supreme Court quoted with approval what Jessel M.R. Said about the powers of the Court of Appeal to grant stay in Polini Vs. Gray (1879) 12 Ch.D. 438 and we quote : "It appears to me on principle that the Court ought to possess that jurisdiction, because the principle which underlies all orders for the preservation of property pending litigation is this, that the successful party in the litigation, that is, the ultimately successful party, is to reap the fruits of that litigation, and not obtain merely a barren success. That principle, as it appears to me, applies as much to the Court of first instance before the first trial, and to the Court of appeal before the....