M/S. Jindal Steel And Power Ltd v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hissar And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH CWP No. 3392 of 2015Date of decision: 02.03.2015 M/s. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. Versus ....Petitioner(s) The Commissioner of Income Tax, Hissar and another ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present:Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate,with Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate,for the petitioner. Mr. T.K. Joshi, Advocate,for the respondents. S.J. VAZIFDAR, A.C.J. (Oral) 1.This is a petition to continue the stay granted by the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal (in short 'ITAT') vide order dated 27.02.2014(Annexure P-3). The ITAT directed the petitioner-assessee to pay a sum of`57 crores and `11 crores by 30.03.2014 and 30.06.2014 and stayed thebalance demand for 180 days. This stay was extended vide further orderdated 27.08.2014 upto 26.02.2015. The further application for stay was notallowed on the ground that the ITAT was not entitled to do so. It is for thisreason that the present petition has been filed. 2.In view of the order of stay having been granted by the ITATearlier and in view of the observations made in the order dated 27.08.2014that the appeals could not be taken up for hearing for no fault of theassessee, it is only fair that the stay granted by the ITAT vide order dated27.02.2014 continues pending the appeal. 3.Counsel for the respondents has raised a grievance that the assessment for the year in question namely 2009-10 is dependent upon theassessment for the previous years namely from the assessment year 2003-04onwards and that the petitioner has been seeking adjournments in thoseproceedings. 4.It is further contended that the petitioner itself agreed by theletter dated 30.01.2015 to pay a sum of `25 crores by the last week ofMarch, 2015. The letter, however, must be read as a whole. Several offerswere made but conditional upon the respondents also agreeing to certainaspects. One of the most important aspects was that the Commissioner ofIncome Tax had allegedly agreed that approvals would be granted to theassessee under Section 281 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pursuant to theapplications filed by it. Failure to deposit the amount by itself, therefore,cannot be a ground for refusing the stay. 5.The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of by continuing theorder dated 27.02.2014. It is, however, in view of the undertaking on behalfof the petitioner that it will not seek any adjournment whatsoever before theTribunal in respect of the appeals filed by it pertaining to the previousassessment years. It is agreed by the petitioner that if for any reasons, itfails to appear during the hearing, the Tribunal shall be entitled to proceedin its absence. In the event of the respondents agreeing to all the terms andconditions contained in the letter dated 30.01.2015, liberty to apply to havethis order modified or vacated. (S.J. VAZIFDAR) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (G.S. SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE