THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/.HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD,

TCA.No.963 of 2015 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 06.7.2020 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.963 of 2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai ...Appellant Vs M/s.Hyundai Motor India Ltd., Irungattukottai, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kanchipuram District. ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 07.2.2014 made in S.P.No.107/Mds/2013 in ITA.No.2353/Mds/ 2012 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench for the assessment year 2008-09. For Appellant: Mr.T.Ravikumar, SSC & Mrs.R.Hemalatha, SSC For Respondent: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram Judgment was delivered by

T.S.Sivagnanam,J

We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar and Mrs.R.Hemalatha learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant – Revenue and Mr.S.P. 1/5 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.963 of 2015 Chidambaram, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) is directed against the order dated 07.2.2014 made in S.P.No.107/Mds/2013 in ITA.No.2353/Mds/2012 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench (for brevity, the Tribunal) for the assessment year 2008-09. 3. The appeal has been admitted on 24.11.2015 on the following substantial questions of law : “i. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in extending the stay beyond the period of 365 days which is contrary to the Third Proviso stated in Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? ii. Is not the finding of the Tribunal bad by extending the stay for a further period of 90 days on 07.2.2014 which would in aggregate amount to in all 506 days which is contrary to the statutory provisions enunciated in Section 254(2A) Third Proviso ? And iii. Whether the Tribunal has power to grant stay beyond 365 days in aggregate especially when the Third Proviso to Section 254(2A) clearly indicates that if the appeal is not disposed of within the period allowed, then the order of stay shall stand vacated ?” 2/5 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.963 of 2015 3/5 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.963 of 2015 4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue submit that the main appeal itself had already been disposed of by the Tribunal. 5. The said submission of the learned Senior Standing Counsel is recorded. 6. In view of the subsequent development, which took place during the pendency of this appeal, the necessity to decide the substantial questions of law framed for consideration would not arise, as the issues have become academic. 7. Accordingly, the above tax case appeal is closed leaving the substantial questions of law framed for consideration to be agitated in any other proceedings, if the respondent – assessee or any other assessee deems it appropriate. No costs. 06.7.2020 To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench. RS 4/5 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.963 of 2015 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J RS TCA.No.963 of 2015 06.7.2020 2/2

5/5 http://www.judis.nic.in