Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Goldman Sachs (I) Securities P.Ltd , vs Department Of Income Tax on 14 November, 2014
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
MUMBAI BENCH "C", MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND
SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
M.A. No. 353 & 385/Mum/2014
(Both Arising Out of ITA No. 6912/Mum/2012)
Assessment Year: 2008-09
DCIT-3(1) M/s. Goldman Sachs (India)
Mumbai Securities Pvt. Ltd. 951-A,
Rational House, Appasaheb
Vs.
Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi
Mumbai- 400 025
PAN: AAFCA 6819
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by : Shri Madhur Agarwal
Revenue by : Shri Neil Philip
Date of hearing : 14.11.2014
Date of Order : 14.11.2014
ORDER
PER BENCH:
The aforesaid Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the Revenue against two separate orders passed in Stay Application by the Tribunal, for extending the stay granted earlier.
2. The main contention of the Revenue in the stay application is that, the stay granted by the Tribunal and extended twice, vide order dated 22.11.2013 and 16.05.2014, has exceeded the period of 365 days, which is in violation of 2nd and 3rd proviso to section 254 (2A). Reference has also been made on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the M.A. No. 353 & 385/Mum/2014 2 (Arising Out of ITA No. 6912/Mum/2012) M/s. Goldman Sachs (India) Securities Pvt.
Assessment Year: 2008-09 case of CIT Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. [(2014) taxmann.com 166 (Delhi)]. Since the stay order granted by the Tribunal cannot exceed more than of 365 days, therefore, the stay should be vacated.
3. Before us the Ld. DR, submitted that, even the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Pvt. Ltd. [](2012) 209 Taxman 190(Kar)], has held that the Tribunal cannot pass orders granting stay beyond the period of 365 days. Thus the stay granted by the Tribunal and extended from time to time should vacated.
4. On the other hand Learned counsel, Shri Madhur Agarwal, submitted that the plea raised by the Revenue in the Miscellaneous Application is wholly unwarranted, as Hon'ble Jurisdiction High Court in various decisions has held that, the Tribunal has the power to exceed the stay even beyond the period of 365 days. The Hon'ble High Court has also taken note of amendment made in the 3rd proviso to section 254 (2A). In support of this contention, he strongly relied upon decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ronuk Industries Ltd. reported in [(2011) 333 ITR 99]. This decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has been followed and reiterated by the same High Court in various decisions. He also filed the copy of Bombay High Court decisions in the case of DIT Vs. M/s. St. Jude Medical Inc. I.T.A. No. 2121, 2122 & 2124 of 2012 judgment and order dated 01.03.2013 and in the case of DIT Vs. M/s. Ingram Micro (India) Exports Pte. Ltd. I.T.A. No. 127, 132, 133 & 136 of 2013, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that the stay can be extended even beyond period of 365 days.
M.A. No. 353 & 385/Mum/2014 3 (Arising Out of ITA No. 6912/Mum/2012) M/s. Goldman Sachs (India) Securities Pvt.
Assessment Year: 2008-09
5. After considering the contentions raised in the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue and also the submissions made by the parties, we find that Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in series of decisions, as referred in the foregoing para, has categorically held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has the power to extend the stay beyond the period of 365 days within the provisions of section 254 (2A) notwithstanding the amendment brought in the 3rd proviso to section 254 (2A), brought by the Finance Act, 2008 w.e.f. 1st October, 2008. In the decision of CIT Vs. Ronuk Industries Ltd. (supra) and also in subsequent decisions as relied upon by the learned counsel, this proposition has been reiterated. Thus in view of the binding judicial precedence of Jurisdictional High Court, we do not find any merits in the contention raised by the revenue, accordingly the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue stands dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on this 14th day of November, 2014.
Sd/- Sd/-
(SANJAY ARORA) (AMIT SHUKLA)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai, Dated: 14.11.2014
*Srivastava
Copy to: The Appellant
The Respondent
The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai
The CIT(A) Concerned, Mumbai
The DR "C" Bench
//True Copy//
By Order
Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.