Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Earlier Known As ... vs Dcit, Circle- 26(2), New Delhi on 10 January, 2022
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "J" BENCH, MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM
SA Nos. Arising out of ITA Nos. Assessment year
175/Mum/2021 9159/Del/2019 2011-12
176/Mum/2021 9160/Del/2019 2011-12
177/Mum/2021 9161/Del/2019 2011-12
178/Mum/2021 8971/Del/2019 2015-16
Vodafone Idea Limited ACIT,Circle-26(2)
(Successor of Vodafone Mobile New Delhi
Services Limited, formerly known as [now transferred to the DCIT, Circle-
Vodafone South Limited), 10th Floor, 5(2)(2), Mumbai]
Vs.
Birla Centurion century Mills
compound, Pandurang,
Budhkar Marg, Worli,
Mumbai-400 030
PAN/GIR No. AAACB2100P
(Appellant) : (Respondent)
Appellant by : Shri Parcy J. Pardiwalla
Respondent by : Shri Ajit Kumar
Date of Hearing : 07.01.2022
Date of Pronouncement : 10 .01.2022
ORDER
Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.:
These are stay applications by the assessee, wherein assesse has sought extension of stay of recovery of outstanding demand pertaining to assessment years 2011-12 and 2015-16.
2. We have heard both the counsels and perused the records. The ld. Senior Counsel, Shri Parcy J. Pardiwalla on behalf of the assessee submitted that last stay order in this case was passed by a common order dated 01.10.2021. He prayed that thereafter, the matter has come for hearing on two occasions. One day the bench did not function. On another day, Ld. DR sought an adjournment. Hence, Ld.Senior counsel submitted that the 2 SA Nos .175 to 178/Mum/2021 appeal has got adjourned due to no fault of the assessee. Hence, he sought an extension of the stay granted earlier.
3. Per contra, Ld. DR did not dispute the proposition that there is no fault of the assessee in the matter getting adjourned at the time of hearing. However, he prayed that assessee should be called upon to pay some amount for the extension of stay. We have carefully considered the submissions, we note that this ITAT had granted extension of stay in this case vide its last order dated 01.10.2021, which reads as under:-
"Having considered rival submissions and perused materials on record, we find that vide order dated 02-07-2021, the Tribunal had extended the stay granted earlier for a period of three months or till the disposal of the corresponding appeals, whichever is earlier. It is further observed, the corresponding appeals came up for hearing on 09- 08-2021 and 11-08-2021. On both the occasions, the concerned departmental representative sought adjournments on the pretext that the concerned appeal records have not been received from the office of the departmental representative of the Delhi Benches of the Tribunal. Though learned counsel for the assessee was ready to argue the appeals and in fact, the bench, for some length of time, proceeded with the hearing, however, considering the reluctance of learned departmental representative in arguing the appeals in absence of official records, appeals were adjourned to 12-10- 2021. Thus, the aforesaid facts clearly reveal that the reasons for non disposal of the appeals cannot be attributed to the assessee. Further, the factual position based on which stay was granted to the assessee and subsequently extended from time to time, have not undergone any material change. In view of the aforesaid, we are inclined to extend stay of recovery of SAs 127 to 130/Mum/2021 outstanding demand for a further period of three months, i.e. till 31-12-2021 or till the disposal of the corresponding appeals of the assessee, whichever is earlier."
4. From the above, it is apparent that ITAT had granted extension of the stay on the last occasion, on the ground that there was no fault attributable to the assessee for the hearing of the appeals not getting competed. In the present case also, we find that there is no change in facts and circumstances. After the last stay order, the appeal had not been heard due to no fault attributable to the assessee. In such situation, when there is no change in facts and circumstances, the terms of extension of stay cannot be varied. Hence, we grant 3 SA Nos .175 to 178/Mum/2021 in extension of the stay in this case for a period of six months or the disposal of the appeal, whichever is earlier.
5. In the result, these stay applications are allowed as above.
Order pronounced in the open court on 10 .01.2022
Sd/- Sd/-
(Vikas Awasthy) (Shamim Yahya)
Judicial Member Accountant Member
Mumbai; Dated : 10 .01.2022
Thirumalesh, Sr. PS
Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. The CIT(A)
4. CIT - concerned
5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. Guard File
BY ORDER,
(Dy./Asstt. Registrar)
ITAT, Mumbai