TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 1143
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t'). 2. Ld. Senior Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had filed application against the exercising power under section 263 of the Act. He submitted that the assessing officer is in the process of concluding the assessment proceedings being framed in pursuance to the impugned order of the Ld. CIT. He submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT has been challenged before this Tribunal and is pending adjudication in ITA No.493/Ind/2018. Ld. Counsel submitted that there would be multiplicity of litigation in case the assessee succeeds in his appeal. Then the assessment proceedings so made would become nullity. Ld. Counsel submitted that this Tribunal has all the power to stay the assessment proceedings in view of the judgement ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2. In respect of the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73 the respondentassessee filed returns of his income showing the receipt of certain amounts towards his l/5th share in the lease amount in respect of Skyline Theatre building, furniture, fittings and machinery. The said return was accepted by the Income-tax Officer. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax, in exercise of his powers under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, revised the order of assessment and directed the Income-tax Officer to reassess the same according to law. Under the said order dated February 27, 1976, the Commissioner of Income-tax expressed his prima facie opinion that the lease income from the said theatre should be assessed in the hands of the association of per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nation 1 in Section 153(3). He submits that inasmuch as the Tribunal has not been held to be a "court", the department cannot have the benefit of Clause (ii) in Explanation 1 and cannot, therefore, seek to exclude the period during which the stay granted by the Tribunal is in operation. He submits that, in a given case, it may happen that the stay-granted by the Tribunal may be operative for a sufficiently long period, leaving no sufficient time for the department to complete the assessment within the period of limitation prescribed by Sub-section (2A) of Section 153, which would naturally result in grave prejudice to the revenue. 4. For the purpose of examining the said contention, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al in a routine manner or as a matter of course, but will be exercised only where a strong prima facie case is made out and after considering the several relevant circumstances, and only on being satisfied that the entire purpose of the appeal will be frustrated or rendered nugatory if the proceedings sought to be stayed are allowed to continue during the pendency of the appeal. 5. The question that then arises is, whether the introduction of Sub-section (2A) of Section 153 of the Act makes any difference to the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in the above decision. Sub-section (2A) of Section 153 reads as follows : "(2A) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-sections (1) and (2), in relation to the assessmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the effect of depriving or abridging the power of the Tribunal to grant appropriate interim orders under Section 254(1) of the Act. The decision of the Supreme Court was rendered in September, 1968, while Sub-section (2A) was introduced by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970. Parliament must be presumed to have known about the said decision of the Supreme Court with reference to the powers of the Tribunal under Section 254 of the Act, and if it wanted to deprive the Tribunal of the said power or to abridge the same, it could have done so expressly. Moreover, no reasons are placed before us compelling us to hold that Sub-section (2A) cuts down the power of the Tribunal under Section 254(1) of the Act in any manner. However, it is obvious....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on by a Tribunal, unless a strong case is made out establishing that the Tribunal has exercised its power in a totally arbitrary manner, or under a total misapprehension of legal position, or without applying its mind to the relevant circumstances and without regard to the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned decision in [1969] 71 ITR 8 3 5 (SC). Of course, the grounds indicated by us are not exhaustive ; the question of interference will be a matter to be decided by the court in each case having regard to the facts of the case. In view of the above circumstances, we do not find any grounds warranting interference with the interlocutory orders passed by the Tribunal and, accordingly, these writ petitions are dism....