Director Of Income Tax (International Taxation)-Ii, New Delhi v. M/S Seacor Offshore Dubai Llc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Income Tax Appeal No. 31 of 2013 Director of Income Tax (International Taxation)-II, New Delhi ……….. Appellant Versus M/s Seacor Offshore Dubai LLC ……….. Respondent AND Income Tax Appeal No. 32 of 2013 Director of Income Tax (International Taxation)-II, New Delhi ……….. Appellant Versus M/s Seacor Offshore Dubai LLC ……….. Respondent Present: Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Pulak Raj Mullick, Advocate for the respondent. Mr. Pulak Raj Mullick, Advocate for the respondent. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J.Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (Oral) The matters in these two appeals are identical and, accordingly, are dealt with by the following common judgment. 2. The Bombay High Court rendered its judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax versus Ronuk Industries Limited, reported in 333 ITR 99 (Bombay) on 22[nd] November, 2010 and, thereby, repeated its decision rendered in the case of Narang Overseas Private Limited, Mumbai versus I.T.A.T., reported in [2007] 259 ITR 22, which was rendered on 30[th] July, 2007 without taking note of the fact that as on 30[th] July, 2007, the third proviso to sub-section (2A) of Section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was not in existence, which came to be inserted only with effect from 1[st] October, 2008. This aspect of the matter, the Tribunal failed to take note of and erroneously held as if it was held in Commissioner of Income Tax versus Ronuk Industries Limited that the Tribunal has power to extend stay of demand beyond the period of 365 days even after insertion of third proviso to sub-section (2A) of Section 254 of the Act. First of all, there is no such pronouncement in Commissioner of Income Tax versus Ronuk industries Limited and, secondly, a statutory authority, which has been granted statutory power, can exercise such power within the four corners of the statute granting such power and in the instant case as on the date when the Tribunal exercised the power of extending stay of demand beyond 365 days, the power of the Tribunal to do so was withdrawn by inserting the proviso in question in the statute. 2. We, accordingly, interfere, allow the appeals and set aside the orders of the Tribunal under appeals. However, from the orders of the Tribunal, it appears that for some reason or the other the Tribunal could not hear an appeal of the respondent assessee within 365 days’ time and, as such, extended the stay beyond 365 days. In the circumstances, it shall be open to the assessee to take such recourse to law as is available to it. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 20.03.2014 20.03.2014 P. Singh