Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Mondelez India Foods P. Ltd, Mumbai vs Addl Cit Rg 5(1), Mumbai on 8 September, 2017
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH "K", MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
S.A.NO.398 TO 402/MUM/2017
(ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS.7539/MUM/2012, 2214/MUM/2014,
1492/MUM/2015, 1240/MUM/2016 & 1518/MUM/2017)
(Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13)
Mondelez India Foods Pvt Ltd v. Additional Commissioner of
{formerly known as Cadbury Income-tax,
India Ltd} Range 5(1)
Mondelez house, Unit NO. 2001, Mumbai
20th floor, Tower -3 (Wing C),
India Bulls Finance Centre
Parel, Mumbai - 400 013
PAN: AAACC 0460 H
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by : Shri Nishant Thakkar
Revenue by : Shri Saurabh Deshpande
Date of Hearing : 08/09/2017
Date of Pronouncement : 08/09/2017
ORDER
PER C.N. PRASAD (JM)
1. Through these Stay Applications assessee requested for extension of stay of outstanding demand for the Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13.
2
S.A.NO.398 TO 402/MUM/2017 Mondelez India Foods Pvt Ltd
2. Learned Counsel for the assessee submits that the Coordinate Bench extended the stay by order dated 17.03.2017 for the Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2011-12 and granted stay for the first time for the Assessment Year 2012-13. Learned Counsel for the assessee submits that as the appeals posted for hearing could not be heard on 13.07.2017 and 07.09.2017 for the reason that the Ld. DR highlighted the fact that one of the issue of the present appeal has been referred to Special Bench in another case which will have a bearing on the present case as well, and the matter got adjourned from 13.07.2017 to 07.09.2017 and on 07.09.2017 matter got adjourned for want of time. Therefore, the Learned Counsel for the assessee requested for extension of stay.
3. Ld. DR opposed for extension of stay.
4. Having heard the rival submission and on perusal of the records, we find that the Coordinate Bench on earlier occasion extended the stay by order dated 17.03.2017 observing as under:
"2. We have heard both the parties in this regard. It is noted that extension of stay was granted earlier vide order dated 23.09.2016. The impugned appeals were fixed for hearing on three occasions. On the first occasion, the bench adjourned the matter for some administrative reasons; on the second occasion, the DR took adjournment and on third occasion the adjournment was taken by the assessee due to BMC elections and that some accommodation was requested for and accordingly the next date of hearing was fixed for 16.03.2017. But, on this date also, the CIT(DR) took adjournment despite the suggestion of the bench that some of the cases could be disposed of. Therefore, facts and 3 S.A.NO.398 TO 402/MUM/2017 Mondelez India Foods Pvt Ltd circumstances of the case clearly indicate that the reasons for delay in disposal of the appeals cannot be attributed to the assessee. Therefore, we find it to be a fit case for the extension of stay already granted. Hence stay granted is extended for a further period of 180 days from the date of this order or till the disposal of the appeals, whichever is an earlier. In case, assessee seeks adjournment without sufficient reasons, this order shall stand vacated automatically. All the other terms and conditions enumerated in our earlier stay order stand.
3 Now we shall take up stay application in S A No 153/M/2017 for AY 2012-13. By way of this stay application, the assessee requested for stay of outstanding demand.
4. During the course of hearing, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel that issues involved in this year are exactly identical to issues of earlier years in which stay has already been granted, therefore, stay may be granted for this year also, and impugned appeal should be tagged for hearing with the appeals of aforesaid earlier years.
5. Per contra Ld. DR did not make any distinction, but simply opposed the stay petition.
6. We have gone through the records brought before us. It is noted that issues involved in this year are similar to the issues involved in appeals for aforesaid earlier years for which stay has already been granted by the Tribunal, as stated above. Therefore, we find it appropriate to stay the demand outstanding for the year 2012-13 also. We do accordingly. All of the terms and conditions shall remain same as has been stipulated in stay orders for the aforesaid earlier years. However, if the assessee seeks adjournment without sufficient reasons, this order shall stand vacated automatically. Further, earlier fixation of hearing of impugned appeal is granted and the appeal is fixed for hearing on 13.07.2017 along with the appeals of the aforesaid years.
5. We also noticed that on 13.07.2017 the matters could not be heard due to the fact that one of the issues was said to be pending before the Special Bench and on 07.09.2017 the matters has got adjourned for want 4 S.A.NO.398 TO 402/MUM/2017 Mondelez India Foods Pvt Ltd of time. Therefore, we do not see any fault of the assessee in matters getting adjourned and thus we are inclined to grant stay for further period of 180 days or till the disposal of appeal whichever is earlier. However, if the assessee seeks adjournment without sufficient reasons stay granted by this order shall stand vacated automatically.
6. The Stay Application is allowed as indicated above Order pronounced in the open court on the 08th September, 2017.
Sd/- Sd/-
(RAMIT KOCHAR) (C.N. PRASAD)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai / Dated 08/09/2017
VSSGB, SPS
Copy of the Order forwarded to:
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. The CIT(A), Mumbai.
4. CIT
5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. Guard file.
//True Copy//
BY ORDER,
(Asstt. Registrar)
ITAT, Mum