Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
M/S. Global Cricket Corporation Pte. ... vs Ddit It-3(1), Mumbai on 2 April, 2019
THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
"I" Bench, Mumbai
Before Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Pawan Singh (JM)
S.A. No. 166/Mum/2019 arising out of
I.T.A. No. 1510/Mum/2009 (Assessment Year 2003-04)
S.A. No. 167/Mum/2019 arising out of
I.T.A. No. 4182/Mum/2011 (Assessment Year 2003-04)
S.A. No. 168/Mum/2019 arising out of
I.T.A. No. 2161/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year 2005-06)
S.A. No. 169/Mum/2019 arising out of
I.T.A. No. 2162/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year 2006-07)
S.A. No. 170/Mum/2019 arising out of
I.T.A. No. 8818/Mum/2010 (Assessment Year 2007-08)
S.A. No. 171/Mum/2019 arising out of
I.T.A. No. 8743/Mum/2011 (Assessment Year 2008-09)
M/s. Global Cricket DCIT (International
Corporation Pte.Ltd.(GCC) Vs. Taxation)-2(3)
C/o. SRBC & Associates LLP Mumbai
14 t h Floor, The Ruby
Senapati Bapat Marg
Tulsi Pipe Road
Dadar (W), Mumbai-400 028.
PAN : AABCG7951L
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by Ms. Aarti Sathe
Department by Shri Abi Rama Karthikeyan
Date of Hearing 29.3.2019
Date of Pronouncement 2.4.2019
ORDER
Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :
These Stay Applications filed for extension of stay already granted by the Tribunal vide its order dated 21.9.2018.2
M /s . G l ob a l C r i c k e t C o r p o r a ti o n P t e. L td . ( G C C )
2. We had carefully gone through the Stay Applications and found that originally stay was granted by the Tribunal vide its order dated 30.6.2017 and which were further extended for a period of six months or till disposal of the appeals, whichever is earlier on the condition that if the assessee seeks adjournment except for exceptional circumstances the stay will automatically cancelled. Learned Counsel of the assessee submitted that the appeals could not be heard for the reasons that the Revenue has sought adjournments on various occasions and also in two occasions the case has been adjourned by the Tribunal because of 'non-functioning of the Benches' on the date fixed for hearing. Therefore, the delay in disposal of the appeals cannot be attributable to the assessee and hence, the stay may be extended for a further period of six months.
3. Last time the stay was granted vide order dated 21.9.2018. the assessee again approached us for further extension.
4. It was contention of learned Counsel of the assessee that there was no default on the part of the assessee due to which appeals could not be heard by the Bench. We noticed that Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra) Ltd. in Writ Petition (Lodg) No. 3437 of 2015 vide order dated 16.12.2015, categorically held that if the delay in disposing of the appeals is not attributable to the assessee, then the stay can be extended beyond the prescribed time limit provided under the statute.
5. Upon careful consideration we note that after the last stay was granted, in the intervening period the hearing of the income tax appeal could not be completed for no default on the part of the assessee. There is no change in the facts and law. We further note that Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone Idea Ltd. Vs. Union of India Write Petition No. 2425 of 2013 vide order dated 23.6.2014 has expounded that ITAT could not vary the terms of initial stay unless there is change in facts and circumstances. Furthermore, we 3 M /s . G l ob a l C r i c k e t C o r p o r a ti o n P t e. L td . ( G C C ) note that the Revenue's reliance upon Hon'ble Apex Court decision in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. is misplaced in as much as the same is not applicable the proceedings under section 254 of the I.T. Act before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. In this regard Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Oracle Financial Services Software Ltd., has held as under :
"4. We are prima facie of the view that the Revenue Authorities committed serious error. Against the total demand arising out of the order of assessment of Rs. 205 crore, the Assessing Officer has already recovered a total of Rs. 140 crores by now through different means. There is no allegation that the petitioner is responsible for delay in disposal of the appeal before the Commissioner. Merely relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt Ltd (supra), Revenue Authorities now held a belief that any stay against the recovery granted would automatically lapse after six months. This is neither the purport of the judgment of the Supreme Court, nor the observations made in the said judgment in the context of civil and criminal litigation can be imported in present set of quasi judicial proceedings. The power of the Assessing Officer to review the situation every six months, would not authorized him to lift the stay previously granted after full consideration and insist on full payment of tax without the assessee being responsible for delay in disposal of the appeal or any other such similar material change in circumstances."
6. Keeping in view that there is no fault on the part of the assessee with regard to the hearing of the appeals on earlier occasions and also keeping in view the judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court as quoted above, we extend stay for further period of six months or till the date of passing of the order by the Tribunal, subject to further condition that if assessee seeks adjournment, except in exceptional circumstances the stay will automatically stands withdrawn.
4M /s . G l ob a l C r i c k e t C o r p o r a ti o n P t e. L td . ( G C C )
7. In the result, Stay Applications are disposed in terms indicated hereinabove.
Order has been pronounced in the Court on 2.4.2019.
Sd/- Sd/-
(PAWAN SINGH) (SHAMIM YAHYA)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Mumbai; Dated : 2/4/2019
Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. The CIT(A)
4. CIT
5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. Guard File.
BY ORDER,
//True Copy//
(Senior Private Secretary)
PS ITAT, Mumbai