- (1.) An order of assessment was passed against the petitioner under section 143(3) and section 144 (C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 making a total addition of Rs.25.89 crores. The petitioner went in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, by an interim order dated 8 January 2013, allowed the application for stay for a period of 180 days or till the disposal of the appeal whichever is earlier subject to the deposit of an amount of Rs. two crores. The petitioner complied with the order of deposit. The appeal was listed before the Tribunal but was adjourned on 30 January 2013, 8 April 2013, 17 April 2013 and 12 June 2013. The petitioner applied for extension of stay. The Tribunal, by its order dated 5 July 2013, extended the stay for a further period of six months or till the disposal of the appeal whichever is earlier. Thereafter, the appeal was heard on 24 and 25 September 2013 and the judgment was reserved. On 28 January 2014, the Tribunal granted a further extension of stay for a period of 90 days which expired on 28 April 2014. The Tribunal duly noticed that the petitioner has not contributed to the delay in the disposal of the appeal. Thereafter, the appeal was re-fixed for hearing and was eventually heard on 28 March 2014.
(2.) These proceedings have been instituted for an extension of the period of stay since, in view of section 254(2-A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal would not have the power to extend the stay in view of the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Maruti Suzuki (India) Limited (Delhi)1. While construing the provisions of section 254(2-A), the Delhi High Court held as follows:- "(i) In view of the third proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Act substituted by Finance Act, 2008 with effect from October 1, 2008, the Tribunal cannot extend stay beyond the period of 365 days from the date of first order of stay. (ii) In case default and delay is due to lapse on the part of the Revenue, the Tribunal is at liberty to conclude hearing and decide the appeal, if there is likelihood that the third proviso to Section 254(2A) would come into operation. (iii) The third proviso to Section 254(2A) does not bar or prohibit the Revenue or the Departmental representative from making a statement that they would not take coercive steps to recover the impugned demand and on such statement being made, it will be open to the Tribunal to adjourn the matter at the request of the Revenue. (iv) An assessee can file a writ petition in the High Court pleading and asking for stay and the High Court has power and jurisdiction to grant stay and issue directions to the Tribunal as may be required. Section 254(2A) does not prohibit/bar the High Court from issuing appropriate directions, including granting stay of recovery."
(3.) In the facts of the present case, several circumstances must necessarily be kept in the balance. Firstly, the petitioner had duly applied for an interim stay which was granted by the Tribunal subject to an order of deposit of Rs. two crores which amount has been deposited. Secondly, as the order passed by the Tribunal on 28 January 2014 would indicate, non disposal of the appeal has not been occasioned by any default on the part of the petitioner. Thirdly, the Tribunal had finally heard the appeal in September 2013 after which the appeal was placed for re-hearing and was finally heard on 28 March 2014 when the judgment was reserved.;