Crm Services India Pvt Ltd v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 11.07.2014 + W.P.(C) 4229/2014 & CM 8493/2014 CRM SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD ... Petitioner versus THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, … Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Ms Kavita Jha with Ms Bhoomika Choudhury and Mr Vaibhav Kulkarni For the Respondent : Mr Abhishek Singh Baghel with Mr Balbir Singh CORAM:- HON’BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMEDHON’BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. Since the facts are not in dispute, the matter is taken up for hearing at the first instance itself. 2.The petitioner has filed an appeal being ITA No. 5930/Del/2012 before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal being aggrieved by the order passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel on 29.10.2012. The Tribunal, at the initial stage, that is, on 09.01.2013, had granted stay of the demand which had been raised subsequent to the said order of the Dispute Resolution Panel on the condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs 25 lacs. The petitioner had deposited the said sum of Rs 25 lacs and the recovery of the balance demand was stayed. 3.A subsequent order dated 29.07.2013 was passed by the Tribunal extending the interim stay which it had earlier granted on 09.01.2013. This was further continued by the Tribunal by virtue of an order dated 07.02.2104 upto 07.07.2014. In the meanwhile, the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in CIT v. Maruti Suzuki (India) Limited: [WP(C) 5086/2013] decided on 21.02.2014 was rendered. By virtue of that decision, it was made clear that the Tribunal had no authority to extend the period of stay beyond a period of 365 days from the initial date of grant of stay. As 365 days had elapsed since 09.01.2013, when the initial stay was granted, the petitioner could not approach the Tribunal for any further extension of stay. It is also to be noted that, in the meanwhile, the petitioner’s said appeal before the Tribunal was heard on 08.05.2014 and orders were reserved. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this writ petition seeking grant of stay of recovery of the balance amount of Rs 1,91,03,892/- pursuant to the notice dated 29.10.2012 in respect of the assessment year 2008-09 till the disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before us several orders passed by this court, whereby this Court has extended the stay initially granted by the Tribunal till the disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In fact, it is settled law that there is no bar for grant of such a relief if the Court is of the opinion that the circumstances and the ends of justice so warrant. This has also been stated clearly in Maruti Suzuki (supra). 4.We feel that since the petitioner had already been granted conditional stay by the Tribunal in respect of the said appeal and that the Tribunal has already heard the matter finally and has reserved orders, it would be in the interest of justice that the stay order granted by the Tribunal is continued till the disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly. The writ petition stands disposed of. Dasti. BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J JULY 11, 2014 SR SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J