The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal & Ors v. Dated : 6Th June, 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (LOD) NO.550 OF 2011 Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. ..Petitioner. V/s. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal & Ors...Respondents. Mr. V. Murlidharan i/b. Mulla & Mulla C. B. & C. for Petitioner.Mr. Vimal Gupta for respondents. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND MRS. R.P.SONDURBALDOTA JJ. DATED : 6TH JUNE, 2011 P.C. :- 1.This petition is filed to challenge the constitutional validity of the proviso to Section 254 (2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 inserted by the Finance Act of 2008 as well as the order dated 14/1/2011 whereby the refund of Rs.5.15 crores due to the assessee in relation to the assessment year 2009-10 has been adjusted towards the tax demand raised for the assessment year 2006-07 during the pendency of the appeal before the ITAT. Admittedly, the amount adjusted pursuant to the order dated 14/1/2011 has been refunded to the petitioner. The only question now to be considered is, if the Tribunal fails to dispose of the appeal within the time stipulated under the proviso to section 254(2A), whether the revenue can enforce the demand for AY 2006-07 during the pendency of the appeal before the ITAT ? It is not the case of the revenue that the petitioner is responsible for the delay in disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal. We are informed that the appeal filed by the assessee is fixed for hearing before the ITAT in August, 2011. In these circumstances, without going into the validity of the proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Act, we direct that the stay granted by the Tribunal shall continue till the disposal of the appeal and for a further period of four weeks thereafter. The Tribunal is directed to hear the matter on day to day basis and dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible. The petition is disposed off in the above facts with no order as to costs. (MRS. R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)