TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 1931
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ITA No. 115/Mum/2015 dated 14.12.2018 for Assessment Year 2012-13 a& 2010-11 respectively. 2. In the Miscellaneous Application No. 173/Mum/2019, the applicant/revenue stated that the order of stay of recovery of outstanding demand be vacated forthwith for the reasons that while granting stay in S.A. No. 492/Mum/2018 dated 14.12.2018 in ITA No. 1428/Mum/2017, the demand is stayed for more than 365 days. The first stay was granted by Tribunal on 28.04.2017, which was extended from time to time. 3. In the Miscellaneous Application No. 174/Mum/2019, the applicant/revenue stated that the order of stay of recovery of outstanding demand be vacated forthwith for the reasons that while granting stay in S.A. No. 493/Mum/2018 dated 14.12.2018 in IT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. But in exceptional cases if the judge thinks that the stay order should continue for some more time, the judge would have to outline the reasons in a written order. The six month rule would also apply to all stay granting orders granted by courts. In this line the learned Sr. D.R. also requested for vacation of the stay in this case. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the assessee submits that appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 in ITA No. 1428/Mum/2017 has already been adjudicated by the Tribunal vide order dated 22.02.2019. The revenue has filed the present application on 07.03.2019 without verifying the fact. Therefore, the Miscellaneous Application No. 173/Mum/2019 is not maintainable....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the following order: "4. We have heard the rival contentions and given through the facts and circumstances of the case. We have gone through the said order in the Stay Application No. 453/Mum/2018 for A.Y. 2011-12 dated 04.12.2018 and noted that the Tribunal has categorically noted a finding of fact that appeals for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and Appeal for A.Y. 2011-12 was fixed for hearing on various dated but the matter was adjourned on account of want of time or any other reason. The assessee cannot be faulted at this stage or non-disposal of appeal cannot be attributed to the assessee. In terms of this the stay was extended for further 180 days from date of order, i.e. 04.12.2018 and the appeal for A.Y. 2011-12 was fixed fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oad Agency P. Ltd. (supra) we noted that the context of the issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was criminal jurisdiction regarding the Prevention of Corruption Act and the cases pending at trial stage and the proceedings stayed by the Hon'ble High Court. This issue has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency P. Ltd. vide paras 36 & 37 as under: - "36. Thus, we declare the law to be that order framing charge is not purely an interlocutory order nor a final order. Jurisdiction of the High Court is not barred irrespective of the label of a petition, be it under Sections 397 or 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 227 of the Constitution. However, the said jurisdiction is to be exercised ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der extending stay is produced. 37. The High Courts may also issue instructions to this effect and monitor the same so that civil or criminal proceedings do not remain pending for unduly period at the trial stage. This was also confronted to the learned Sr. D.R., where they have raised the issue of exceeding 365 days before the Tribunal at the time of extension of the say vide order dated 04.12.2018, the learned Sr. D.R. could not reply to the same. We noted that this judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court will not help the Revenue for the reason that even the Legislature in this provision of Section 254(2A) introduced third proviso vide Finance Act, 2008 and allowed the period for granting of stay not exceeding 365 days in normal circu....