RAJESH OMPRAKASH AGRAWAL,THANE vs. DCIT (CC) 4(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1198/MUM/2020Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 May 2023AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delay in disposing of the appeals was not attributable to the assessee and there was no change in circumstances. Therefore, the stay was extended.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Vodafone Idea Ltd., sought an extension of stay on demand for multiple assessment years. The stay had been granted and extended multiple times previously, with the appeals now listed for hearing.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the assessee was entitled to an extension of stay on demand given the delays in appeal disposal and no change in circumstances.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “I” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARSHI, AM

For Appellant: Shri Ninad Patade AR
For Respondent: Shri Sonumendu Kumar DR
Hearing: 28.04.2023Pronounced: 28.04.2023

Heard together (8 matters)

SA No. 53/MUM/2023
ITA no. 1121/Mum/2014
SA No. 56/MUM/2023
ITA no. 1573/Mum/2015
SA No. 54/MUM/2023
ITA no. 884/Mum/2016
SA No. 55/MUM/2023
ITA no. 6671/Mum/2011

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM:

1.

Assessee is seeking extension of stay already granted vide SA Nos.132 to 135/Mum/2022 for A.Ys. 2009-10 to 2013-14 vide order of ITAT dated 21 October 2022.

2.

Assessee was originally granted stay of demand vide order dated 14 March 2014, which has been extended by various orders of ITAT for fourteen times. All these appeals of the assessee were posted for hearing on several occasions and now posted for hearing on 8 May 2023. The delays in disposal of these appeals are not on account of

3.

The learned Authorized Representative reiterated the above facts as stated in stay petition and therefore requested for extension of stay.

4.

The learned Departmental Representative vehemently objected the same.

5.

We have carefully considered the rival contentions, find that this application of stay of extension of stay deserves to be allowed as delay in disposal is not attributable to the assessee, and further there is no change in the facts and circumstances from the last stay granted. Accordingly, all these petitions stands allowed and the stay already granted is further extended by 180 days from the date of this order or disposal of appeal, whichever is earlier. Both the parties are directed to endeavor for hearing of these appeals on 8 May 2023. Accordingly, these stay petitions are allowed.

6.

In the result, All Stay Applications of the assessee are allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28.04.2023.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →