Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 3]

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai

Malco Energy Ltd.(Formerly Known As ... vs Asst Cit Circle-10(2)(2), Mumbai on 8 April, 2022

                              आयकर अपील य अ धकरण
                                    मंब
                                      ु ई पीठ "जे "
                       ी  वकास अव थी,  या यक सद य एवं
                      ी अमरजीत #संह, लेखा सद य के सम&
                      IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                          MUMBAI BENCH " J ", MUMBAI
               BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER &
                  SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
                                S.A NO.30/MUM/2022
              [ Arising out of ITA NO.7314/MUM/2019(A.Y.2015-16)]

Malco Energy Limited.
[formerly known as Vedanta Aluminium Limited]
Vedanta House, 75, Nehru Road,
Vile Parle, Mumbai 400 099.
PAN: AAHCS-6896-A                                            ...... 'ाथ( /Applicant
बनाम Vs.
The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax-10(2)(2),
Room No.209, 2nd Floor,
Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road,
Mumbai 400 020.                                            ..... ' तवाद /Respondent
      'ाथ( +वारा/ Applicant    by        :   Ms. Fereshte Sethana
      ' तवाद +वारा/Respondent by         :   Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand

      सन
       ु वाई क,  त थ/ Date of hearing                        :      08/04/2022
      घोषणा क,  त थ/ Date of pronouncement                   :       08/04/2022

                                    आदे श/ ORDER

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:

This stay application has been filed by the assessee seeking extension of stay of the recovery of outstanding demand for the assessment year 2015-16.

2. Ms. Fereshte Sethana appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that the assessee's stay application in S.A.No.445/Mum/2019 was decided by the Tribunal vide order dated 19/12/2019. The Tribunal granted stay for a period of 2 S.A NO.30/MUM/2022 180 days from the date of order subject to payment of Rs.5.00 crores on or before 31/01/2020. The assessee complied with the condition, as directed, the amount was paid before the date set out in the order. During the currency of stay the appeal was heard on merits on 17/02/2020. However, before the order could be pronounced, due to lock down caused by COVID-19 Pandemic, the entire system come to a standstill. During the lockdown period, the assessee filed application for extension of stay through e-Mail on 16/06/2020. To substantiate her contention, the ld. Counsel filed copy of the e-Mail, whereby application seeking extension of stay was filed before the Tribunal. Coming to the chronology of events the ld. Counsel further submitted that the appeal was again listed for hearing as part heard through virtual hearing on 24/07/2020. On the said date, the Revenue sought time and the matter was adjourned to 29/07/2020. On the said date, the appeal was taken up for hearing through virtual hearing mode, however, due to paucity of time the Bench adjourned the hearing to 06/08/2020. On the said date the hearing could not be taken on account of interruption in internet services and the appeal was adjourned to 26/08/2020. On the said date the appeal was adjourned to 10/09/2020 as the Hon'ble Accountant Member was on tour. In the meantime the Hon'ble Accountant Member got transfer and on 10/09/2020 the appeal was released for fresh hearing. Thereafter, the appeal was either not listed for hearing or was adjourned by the Bench. The assessee is willing and always ready to assist the Bench for hearing of the appeal. The delay in hearing of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee. The ld.Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the stay application seeking extension of stay filed by the assessee on 16/06/2020 was never listed for hearing by the Registry, hence, the assessee filed fresh/present stay application seeking extension of stay on 07/03/2022.

3

S.A NO.30/MUM/2022

3. Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand representing the Department vehemently opposed the assessee's application for extension of stay. The ld.Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee may be directed to deposit 20% of the total demand as a pre-condition for granting extension of stay.

4. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides. The assessee was granted relief of stay of recovery of outstanding demand by the Tribunal in S.A. No.445/Mum/2019 (supra) for a period of 180 days from the date of order subject to payment of Rs.5.00 crores. The fact that the assessee has complied with the condition as mentioned in the aforesaid stay order has not been disputed by the Department. Purportedly, the assessee has filed application seeking extension of stay through e-Mail on 16/06/2020 i.e. before the expiry of period of 180 days. The stay application was filed during National lockdown due to COVID -19 Pandemic. However, the said Stay Application was never listed for hearing nor any objection highlighting any deficiency in the Stay Application was communicated to the assessee/applicant by the Registry.

Be that as it may, to mitigate the hardship of litigants caused by COVID -19 Pandemic the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Writ Petition Urgent 2 of 2020 on its Own Motion vide order dated 26/3/2020 extended operation of all Interim Orders passed by High Court and all courts/Tribunals and authorities subordinate within its jurisdiction till 30/4/2020. The operation of the aforesaid order was extended by the Hon'ble High Court from time to time till the situation caused by Pandemic improved.

5. Now, the assessee has filed a fresh application seeking extension of stay. A perusal of the sequence of events tabulated by the assessee and also established from the appeal file, we find that the delay in hearing of the appeal is not 4 S.A NO.30/MUM/2022 attributable to the assessee. Taking into consideration entire facts, we are of the considered view that the stay already granted by the Tribunal deserves to be extended for another period of 180 days from the date of this order or till the disposal of the appeal, whichever is earlier.

6. It is made clear that the benefit of stay shall cease to operate forthwith in case the assessee seeks adjournment without any reasonable cause.

7. The stay application stands allowed in the terms aforesaid.

Order pronounced in the open Court on Friday the 08th day of April, 2022.

                     Sd/-                                           Sd/-
            (AMARJIT SINGH)                                     (VIKAS AWASTHY)
        लेखा सद य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                 या यक सद य/JUDICIAL MEMBER

मुंबई/ Mumbai, 0दनांक/Dated 08/04/2022
Vm, Sr. PS(O/S)
  त ल प अ े षतCopy of the Order forwarded to :

1.   अपीलाथ(/The Appellant ,
2.   ' तवाद / The Respondent.
3.   आयकर आय1
            ु त(अ)/ The CIT(A)-
4.   आयकर आय1
            ु त CIT
5.    वभागीय ' त न ध, आय.अपी.अ ध., मब
                                    ु ई
                                      ं /DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6.   गाड8 फाइल/Guard file.

                                                    BY ORDER,
//True Copy//
                                           (Dy./Asstt. Registrar)                 ITAT,
                                           Mumbai