Income-Tax v. Pepsi Foods Ltd.has Held That Any Order Of Stay Shall Standvacated After The Expiry Of The Period Or Periods Mentioned In The Section254(2A) Of The Act Only If

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 399 OF 2018 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2 Vs.Chennai Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd. ….. Appellant ….. Respondent Mr.Suresh Kumar, for Appellant.Mr. Nishant Thakkar a/w Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala i/b Lumiere LawPartners, for Respondent. CORAM:K.R.SHRIRAM, J &FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J. DATED :JUNE 28, 2023 P.C. 1.This appeal is impugning an order dated 31/03/2017 passed byIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (‘ITAT’) under Section 254(1) ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) by which the ITAT extended by aperiod of 6 months the stay that it had granted, in view of respondenthaving complied with its earlier order by depositing Rs. 50 lakhs. 2.The impugned order itself was in force only for a period of 6 monthswhich expired on 30/09/2017. 3.Therefore, nothing survives in this appeal. 4.Appeal disposed. 1Deputy Commissioner of 5.We also note that the Apex Court in 1 Income-tax Vs. Pepsi Foods Ltd.has held that any order of stay shall standvacated after the expiry of the period or periods mentioned in the Section254(2A) of the Act only if the delay in disposing the appeal is attributableto assessee. (FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J) (K.R.SHRIRAM, J) 1(2021) 126 taxmann.com 69(SC)