Director Of Income Tax (It)-1 v. M/S.st. Jude Medical Inc

ASN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2121 OF 2012 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2122 OF 2012WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2124 OF 2012 Director of Income Tax (IT)-1...Appellant. v. M/s.St. Jude Medical Inc...Respondent. Mr.Arvind Pinto for the Appellant.Mr. J.D.Mistri, Senior Advocare with Mr. A. K. Jasani for the Respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ. DATE : 1st March, 2013 PC: In these appeals by the revenue for assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 respectively following questions of law have been raised for our consideration. a)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in granting a stay for the recovery of demand beyond 365 days in direct contravention of the provisions of the third proviso to Section 254(2A) that is explicit in vacating any order of stay after the expiry of such period even if the delay is not attributable to the assesses? b)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in merely extending the stay on the assurance of the Counsel for the respondent that the case could not be taken by “for certain unspecified reasons” that were not even elaborated in the order? c)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the decision of the Tribunal can be considered perverse for extending the stay in direct contravention of the proviso in the light of certain vague and unspecified reasons that the Tribunal did not deem fit to elaborate? 3)Counsel for the parties state that the issue arising herein is covered in favour of the respondent assessee by the decision of this Court in the matter of CIT v. Ronuk Industries Ltd. reported in (2011) 333 ITR-99 (Bom.) In view of the above, we see no reason to entertain the proposed questions of law. 4)The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S.SANKLECHA, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)