PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF IN vs. C.KISHNANLAL

TCA.Nos.557-560 of 2019 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 05.8.2019 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal Nos.557 to 560 of 2019 & CMP.Nos.17039 to 17041 of 2019 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central 1, Chennai-34. ...Appellant Vs C.Kishanlal ...Respondent APPEALS under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the common order dated 14.9.2018 made respectively in SP.Nos.277, 274, 275 and 278/Chny/2018 in ITA.Nos.2930, 2928, 2929 and 2931/Chny/2017 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench for the assessment years 2006-07, 2006-07, 2006-07 and 2012-13 respectively. For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, SSC & Ms.K.G.Usharani, SC COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by

T.S.Sivagnanam,J)

We have heard Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel as well as Ms.K.G.Usharani, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant – Revenue. 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.557-560 of 2019 2. These appeals, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are directed against the common order dated 14.9.2018 made respectively in SP.Nos.277, 274, 275 and 278/Chny/2018 in ITA.Nos.2930, 2928, 2929 and 2931/Chny/2017 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench for the assessment years 2006-07, 2006-07, 2006-07 and 2012-13 respectively. 3. The Revenue has filed the above appeals on the following substantial questions of law : “i. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in granting stay of recovery till the debt due to the assessee from his creditor is fully recovered by the Department in satisfaction of its arrear demand, which would have the effect of the Tribunal granting stay exceeding 180 days at a stretch, is in violation of the First Proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act? ii. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in directing the Department to recover its dues from Shri.Dharmendra Bafna, when the said dues are under litigation in a civil suit filed by him against the assessee is pending before this Court? iii. Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in dismissing the earlier two stay petitions filed by the assessee, but by this impugned order granting stay would amount reviewing its own order, when the Tribunal is not vested with the authority to 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.557-560 of 2019 review its own decision? And iv. Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in directing the Revenue to lift the bank attachment, when, as per the provisions of Section 254(2A), the Tribunal has been endowed with the power only to grant stay?” 4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant fairly submits that an identical issue was considered by us in TCA.No.444 of 2019 (PCIT Vs. M/s.Kishanlal & Sons, HUF), which related to the HUF, to which, the respondent – assessee belongs and that the said appeal was closed by judgment dated 11.7.2019 leaving the substantial questions of law open. 5. Following the said decision, these appeals are closed leaving the substantial questions of law open. Consequently, the connected CMPs are also closed. 05.8.2019 Internet: Yes To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench. RS 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.557-560 of 2019 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J RS TCA.Nos.557 to 560 of 2019 & CMP.Nos.17039 to 17041 of 2019 05.8.2019 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in