- (1.) This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, "the Act") against the order dated 8.6.2015, Annexure A.III passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, New Delhi (Friday) (in short, "the Tribunal") in Stay Application 327/Delhi/2015 (in ITA No.3052/DEL/2014) for the assessment year 2008-09, claiming following substantial questions of law:- "1. Whether the Hon'ble ITAT has acted in contravention of the Second Proviso of Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the combined period of stay has exceeded 365 days 2. Whether the order of the ITAT be treated as void ab initio in the light of third proviso to section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which provides that stay of demand stands vacated after expiry of a period of 365 days even if delay in disposal of appeal is not attributable to the assessee -
(2.) A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The assessee furnished its return of income for the assessment year 2008-08 declaring income of Rs. 766,99,04,200/- on 29.9.2008. Subsequently, a revised return of income was filed on 29.3.2010 wherein income of Rs. Rs. 766,72,79,900/- was declared and tax was paid under the provisions of Section 115JB of the Act. Assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 27.12.2010 at a total income of Rs. 10,33,26,17,034/- and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. Vide order dated 10.3.2014, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. The Assessing Officer imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act at Rs. 28,21,94,177/- vide order dated 28.11.2013, Annexure A.I for the assessment year 2008-09. Against the penalty order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). Vide order dated 13.3.2014, Annexure A.II, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. The assessee had deposited demand of Rs. 14,11,77,088/- on 29.3.2014 and the balance demand outstanding was of Rs. 14,10,17,089/-. Against the order passed by the CIT(A) under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. Original stay of demand application was also filed by the assessee before the Tribunal praying for staying the outstanding demand of Rs. 14,10,17,089/- as penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal granted stay vide order dated 16.6.2014 for six months. The assessee filed further application for extension of second stay of demand. The Tribunal granted stay upto 15.6.2015 vide order dated 20.2.2015. The assessee filed another application for extension of stay of demand. The Tribunal vide order dated 8.6.2015, Annexure A.III extended the stay for a further period of six months or till the disposal of the appeal whichever was earlier by relying upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in Pepsi Foods Pvt. Limited vs. ACIT, 2015-TIOL-1306 HC-DEL-IT. According to the appellant-revenue, the decision of the Tribunal is not in accordance with law as it is contrary to the second and third provisos to section 254(2A) of the Act. Hence the instant appeal by the revenue.
(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-revenue.;