The Director Of Income Tax (It) – Ii, Mumbai v. M/S.ingram Micro (India) Exports Pte. Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.127 OF 2013ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.132 OF 2013ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.133 OF 2013ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.136 OF 2013 The Director of Income Tax (IT) – II, MumbaiVersusM/s.Ingram Micro (India) Exports Pte. Limited ..Appellant. ..Respondent. Mr.Tejveer Singh for the appellant.Mr.J.D. Mistri, Senior Advocate with Mr.Nishant Thakkar and Mr.Atul K Jasani for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &M.S. Sanklecha, JJ. DATE : 6[th] March 2013 P.C. : Office objections waived. 2.In all these appeals for assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04, 2006-07 and 2007-08, following common question of law has been proposed for our consideration. “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is correct in granting further stay of demand beyond 365 days without appreciating the fact that total stay granted as exceeded the limit of 365 days in contravention to the third proviso to Section 254 (2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?” 3.Counsel for the parties state that this Court by an order dated 28[th] February 2013 refused to entertain similar question raised by the Revenue in Income Tax Appeal (L) No.1927 of 2012 in the matter of Commissioner of Income Tax – II, Pune V/s. PTC Software (I) Private Limited. For the reasons mentioned in our order dated 28[th] February 2013 passed in Income Tax Appeal (L) No.1927 of 2012, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law. 4.Moreover, we are informed that the appeals filed before the Tribunal have been finally disposed of on 21[st] December 2012. Accordingly, no occasion would arise to entertain the proposed question of law. 5.In view of the above, all the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S. Sanklecha, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)