Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Fulford (India) Ltd , vs Assessee on 30 March, 2012
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCHES " F ", MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI G. E. VEERABHADRAPPA, HON'BLE PRESIDENT AND
SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
S.A. No.149/Mum/2012
In ITA No: 7596/Mum/2011
Assessment Year: 2007-08
M/s. Fulford (India) Limited ACIT Range 2(1),
8th Floor, Platina House, Mumbai
Plot No. CIT(Appeals)-59,
Vs.
G Block, Bandra (E),
Mumbai-400 098
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Shri Arvind Dalal
Respondent by : Shri P. C. Maurya
Date of hearing : 30.03.2012
Date of Pronouncement : 30.03.2012
ORDER
Per AMIT SHUKLA (JM) :
The appellant/assessee has filed the present petition seeking extension of stay of demand. Earlier the stay was granted by the ITAT vide order dated 30.12.2011 upto the period of two months i.e. 29.02.2012, subject to the condition that the assessee would pay `.50,00,000/- on or before 07.01.2012. The said amount has been deposited by the assessee on 06.01.2012. The appeal was fixed for hearing on 15.02.2012. However on the said date, the hearing could not take place, as the assessee had sought an adjournment, on the ground that the Sr. Counsel was out of station and the hearing was reschedule for 14.03.2012. Since the stay was to expire on 29.02.2012, the assessee moved an application for extension of stay for the 2 S.A. No.: 149 /Mum/2012 M/s. Fulford (India) Limited further period of six months. However, the ITAT vide order dated 17.02.2012 extended the stay upto 31.03.2012 with the condition that, in case any adjournment is sought by the assessee on the schedule date of hearing, the stay would automatically will get vacated.
2. However on 14.03.2012, the department sought an adjournment on the ground that CIT(DR), designated to argue the case was not available. The case was adjourned. Now the appeal is fixed for hearing on 19.04.2012.
3. The learned AR on behalf of the appellant/assessee submitted that the stay should be granted for a period of 180 days or till the disposal of appeal whichever is earlier. On the contrary, the learned Sr. DR submitted that out of the total payment of `.6,78,72,960/-, only a sum of `.50,00,000/- have been paid and the assessee should be directed to pay substantial amount outstanding demand.
4. We have heard the parties and also perused the orders passed by the ITAT granting/extending the stay. The conditions on which stay was granted vide order dated 30.12.2011 and further extended by order dated 17.02.2011 remains the same. We, therefore, feel inclined to extend the stay of demand upto 30.04.2012 i.e. for a further period of one month, as the appeal is fixed for hearing on 19.04.2012. The extension of stay is given with the condition that the assessee will not seek any adjournment on the schedule date of hearing and in case any adjournment is sought, the stay 3 S.A. No.: 149 /Mum/2012 M/s. Fulford (India) Limited will get automatically vacated. In case, the hearing is adjourned for some other reason, it is upon for the Bench to take further decision accordingly.
5. In the result, the stay application of the assessee is allowed on terms indicated above.
Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing itself i.e. on 30th March, 2012.
Sd/- Sd/-
( G. E. VEERABHADRAPPA ) ( AMIT SHUKLA )
PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER
MUMBAI, Dt: 30.03.2012
Copy forwarded to :
1. The Appellant,
2. The Respondent,
3. The C.I.T.
4. CIT (A)
5. The DR, F - Bench, ITAT, Mumbai
//True Copy//
BY ORDER
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
ITAT, Mumbai Benches, Mumbai
Roshani