Ita/6/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. K.d.cokes

ITA 6/2012BEFOREHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROYHON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA(Amitava Roy, J) Heard Mr S Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr R Goenka, learned counsel for the respondent. The instant appeal is against the order dated 9.2.2012 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Guwahati (for short, hereinafter referred toas ’the Tribunal’) in Stay Petition No. 10/Gau/2011 arising out of ITA 96/Gau/2011. Admittedly, the aforementioned appeal has been preferred by the respondent-assessee against the order dated 14.7.2011 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) rendered in Appeal No. Guwa-89/2010-11 under Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, hereinafter referred to as ’the Act’). As the order dated 9.2.2012 would reveal, in the Stay Petition No. 10/Gau/2011 the respondent- assessee had prayed for stay of payment of Rs. 3,93,92,924/- together with interest of Rs. 98,98,078/-. By the interim order the respondent-assessee had been required to pay a sum of Rs. 5 Lakhs over and above the sumalready paid, if any, against the demand and the stay petition was disposed of in the said terms. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal under Section 260A of the Act. Whereas Mr Sarma has urged that in view of the determination made by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax -vs- Meghalaya Steels Ltd., (2011) 332 ITR91, the impugned order is untenable on the face of the records, Mr Goenka with reference to the 3rd proviso to Section 254 of the Act has submitted that as on date the impugned order has lost its force with the efflux of time rendering theinstant appeal non-est. He has submitted further on instructions that meanwhilethe respondent-assessee has taken steps for obtaining an extension of the orderdated 9.2.2012 as contemplated in the 4th proviso to this statutory provision.Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the pleaded facts and the documents on record, we are of the unhesitant opinion that in the teeth of the unambiguous language contained in the 3rd proviso toSection 254 of the Act, the order dated 9.2.2012 passed by the learned Tribunalin Stay Petition No. 10/Gau/2011 as aforementioned does not subsist as on date.Consequentially, the instant appeal preferred against the same has been rendered non-est with the lapse of time. This appeal is, thus, closed. No costs.