The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Chennai v. M/S.hyundai Motor India Ltd.,Plot No.h1, Sipcot Industrial Park,Irungattukottai, Sriperumbudur Taluk,Kancheepuram District

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 20.07.2021CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMYAND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA The Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai. ...Appellant vs. M/s.Hyundai Motor India Ltd.,Plot No.H1, SIPCOT Industrial Park,Irungattukottai, Sriperumbudur Taluk,Kancheepuram District,PAN : ...Respondent Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Madras, "B" Bench, dated 27.02.2015 in S.P.No.122/Mds/2015 inI.T.A.No.2353/Mds/2012 for the Assessment Year 2008-09. Appeal against the order passed by the Deputy Commissionerof Income Tax Large Tax Payer Unit, Chennai dated 29.10.2012made in GIR No./PA. No. AAACH2364M for the Assessment year 2008-2009. For Appellant : Mr. T. Ravikumar Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr. SP.Chidambaram JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by M. DURAISWAMY, J.) Challenging the order passed in S.P.No.122/Mds/2015 inI.T.A.No.2353/Mds/2012 for the Assessment Year 2008-2009 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Chennai,the Revenue has filed the above appeal. 2.The above appeal was admitted on the following substantialquestions of law:“ (i) Whether the Tribunal is right in holdingthat the assessee had co-operated in the appealproceedings and granted stay of recovery of tax for afurther period of 120 days or until the pronouncementof the order, whichever is earlier, which is contraryto the statutory provisions of Section 254(2A) ofIncome Tax? and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (ii) Is not the finding of the Tribunal bad bygranting stay of further period of 120 days or untilthe disposal of the appeal, which is contrary to thestatutory provision enacted and against the intentionof the legislature?” 3.When the appeal is taken up for hearing, Mr.T.Ravikumar,learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant-Revenue submitted that the above appeal has been filed asagainst the interim order passed in I.T.A.No.2353/Mds/2012 andthat subsequently, by order dated 22.04.2016, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal had disposed of the main appeal inI.T.A.No.2353/Mds/2012, therefore, the above appeal, which hasbeen filed as against the interim order passed in the saidappeal, has become redundant. 4. Having regard to the submission made by the learnedSenior Standing Counsel counsel appearing for the appellant-Revenue, since the Tribunal had already disposed of the mainappeal, the appeal filed as against the interim order passed inthe said appeal has become redundant. Accordingly, the Tax CaseAppeal is dismissed as infructuous. However, the questions oflaw, which are raised in the above appeal are left open andshall be decided in an appropriate appeal. No costs. s/d- Assistant Registrar(CS-III) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar RjTo1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, "B"Bench. 2.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Large Tax Payer UnitChennai 3.The Commissioner of Income TaxChennai +1 CC to Mr.T.Ravikumar, Advocate sr 34773.+1 CC to Mr. SP.Chidambaram, Advocate sr 34775.