2020 (4) TMI 657

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion Nos.22 to 24/Bang/2020 in IT(TP)A Nos.2890/Bang/3430/Bang/2018 & IT(IT)A No.97/Bang/2019 for extension of stay of outstanding demand. 2. The learned Authorized Representative submitted that originally the stay was granted by the Tribunal in S.P. Nos.286/Bang/2018 and 18 and 19/Bang/2019 vide order dt.21.02.2019 subject to payment of Rs. 475 Crores in four installments. However, the revenue has challenged the above stay order passed by the Tribunal before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, and Hon'ble High Court has reduced the payment in 3 installments and the assessee has duly complied with the directions of the Hon'ble High Court in paying the installments. Subsequently, the stay order was extended in S.P. Nos.238....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd the period of stay even beyond the time limit laid down in 3rd proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). We consider appropriate to extract below the observations of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Pepsi Foods (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (Supra) : " 24. Furthermore, the petitioners are correct in their submission that unequals have been treated equally. Assessees who, after having obtained stay orders and by their conduct delay the appeal proceedings, have been treated in the same manner in which assessees, who have not, in any way, delayed the proceedings in the appeal. The two classes of assessees are distinct and cannot be clubbed together. This clubbing together has led to hostile discriminat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ich is read as under : 3. We have given a very careful consideration to the rival submissions. We are of the that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Ecom Gill Coffe (supra) has not dealt with the constitutional validity of the 3rd proviso to Sec. 254(2A) of the Act. The Hon'ble Court only held that Tribunal has no power to extend stay beyond a period of 365 days in view of the clear language of 3rd proviso to Sec. 254(2A) of the Act and that statutory tribunals have to follow the statutory provisions as it is. As rightly contended on behalf of the Assessee when once the 3rd proviso has been held to be unconstitutional by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court (the decision of Delhi High Court is later in point of tim....