Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad
Bharathi Cement Corporation Private ... vs Acit, Circle-2(3), Hyderabad, ... on 27 February, 2017
SA No 15 of 2017 Bharathi Cement Corporation P Ltd Hyderabad
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Hyderabad ' B ' Bench, Hyderabad
Before Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member
AND
Shri S.Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member
S.A.No.15/Hyd/2017
(Arising out of ITA No.696/Hyd/2014)
(Assessment Year: 2009-10)
M/s. Bharathi Cement Vs Asstt. Commissioner of
Corporation P Ltd Income Tax,
Hyderabad Central Circle 2(3)
PAN: AADCR 3079 G Hyderabad
For Assessee : Shri S. Kalyanasundaram
For Revenue : Smt. M. Kiranmayee
Date of Hearing: 23.02.2017
Date of Pronouncement: 27.02.2017
ORDER
Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.
This application is filed by the assessee seeking extension of stay granted earlier by this Tribunal vide orders dated 24.08.2016 in SA No.55/Hyd/2016.
2. The learned Counsel for the Department, Smt. M. Kiranmayee objected to the extension of stay stating that this Tribunal had already granted stay for a period of 365 days and for the period exceeding 365 days, this Tribunal cannot grant further stay in view of the provisos to section 254(2A) of the I.T. Act. She relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd reported in 362 ITR 215 (Del.) and also the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court judgment in the case Page 1 of 3 SA No 15 of 2017 Bharathi Cement Corporation P Ltd Hyderabad of CIT vs. Ecom Gill Coffee Trading P Ltd reported in 362 ITR 204 (Kar.) wherein it has been held that the Tribunal cannot grant stay in the pending appeals beyond the period of 365 days even if the delay in disposal of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee.
3. The learned Counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, submitted that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd, reported in 376 ITR 87 (Del.) has considered its earlier decision in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd (cited Supra) and has observed that the decision in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd was rendered without considering the constitutional validity of the proviso to section 254(2A) of the Act and thereafter held the proviso to be ultra vires the constitution. He submitted that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court further has held that the Tribunal has the power to grant further stay beyond the prescribed period if the delay in disposal of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee.
4. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record and the judicial precedents on the issue, we find that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd (cited Supra) has considered the legal provisions as well as the constitutional validity of the said provision and has held that the Tribunal can extend the stay beyond the period of 365 days. Respectfully following the same and also further since there is no change in facts and circumstances as compared to the circumstances as on the date of grant of stay on 24.8.2016, we Page 2 of 3 SA No 15 of 2017 Bharathi Cement Corporation P Ltd Hyderabad deem it fit and proper to extend the stay for a further period of 180 days or till the disposal of the appeal whichever is earlier.
5. In the result, the stay application is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 27th February, 2017.
Sd/- Sd/-
(S.Rifaur Rahman) (P. Madhavi Devi)
Accountant Member Judicial Member
Hyderabad, dated 27th February, 2017.
Vinodan/sps
Copy to:
1 M/s. Bharathi Cement Corporation P Ltd 8-2-626 Reliance Majestic Road No.10 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 2 Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(3) Hyderabad 3 CIT (A)-III Hyderabad 4 CIT - II Hyderabad 5 The DR, ITAT Hyderabad 6 Guard File By Order Page 3 of 3