M/s CA (India) Technologies Private Limited, Ground floor, Vibgyor Tower, Plot No. C-62, G block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051 Vs. The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 10(1), Mumbai
March, 16th 2015
, " "
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "K" BENCH, MUMBAI
BEFORE HON'BLE S/SHRI JOGINDER SINGH (JM), AND B.R.BASKARAN (AM)
, .. ,
Stay Application No.64/Mum/2015
arising out of ./ ITA No.7602/Mum./2012
( / Assessment Year: 2008-09)
M/s CA (India) Technologies / The Addl. Commissioner of
Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax, Range 10(1),
Ground floor, Vibgyor Tower, Mumbai
Plot No. C-62, G block,
Bandra Kurla Complex,
( /Appellant) .. ( / Respondent)
. / . /PAN/GIR No. : AAACC4971D
/ Appellant by Shri Ali Asgen Rampurawala
/Respondent by Shri Neil Philip
/ Date of Hearing
/Date of Pronouncement : 13.3.2015
/ O R D E R
Per B.R.BASKARAN, Accountant Member:
The assessee has filed this stay application seeking extension of stay
of collection of outstanding demand relating to assessment year 2008-09.
2. The ld. counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the co-
ordinate Bench of the Tribunal had granted stay earlier, vide its order
dated 8.8.2014 passed in the assessee's case in SA No.208/Mum/2014 for
a period of 180 days. The bench also posted the appeal for hearing on
12.3.2014. However from that date, the case got adjourned from time to
time either at the request of the ld. DR or for the reason that the Bench
did not function. Accordingly, the ld. AR submitted that there was no
default on the part of the assessee in not getting the appeal disposed of.
Accordingly the ld.AR, by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble
Bombay High Court in the case of CIT V/s Ronak Industries Ltd. reported
in 333 ITR 99 (Bom), prayed that the stay may be extended for a further
period of six months. The ld. counsel further submitted that the appeals
of the assessee pertaining to earlier years have been posted for hearing on
18.3.2015 and accordingly prayed that the appeal relating to the year
under consideration may also be posted on that date.
3. We have heard the ld. DR and he did not oppose the factual aspects
presented by the ld. AR.
4. Having heard the rival contentions and upon noticing the fact that
the appeal was not adjourned at the instance of assessee, we are of the
view that it is a fit case for further extension of stay. Accordingly, we
direct the department not to enforce the collection of outstanding demand
for a further period of 180 days from the date of this order or till the
disposal of appeal whichever period expires earlier. Since the appeal of
the assessee for earlier years have been posted on 18.3.2015, we direct
the registry to post the appeal under consideration also on 18.3.2015.
Since the date of hearing is announced in the open court in the presence
of both the parties, service of notice is hereby dispensed with. The
assessee should also not seek adjournment on the date of hearing without
a reasonable and sufficient cause failing which; the present stay order
shall be subject to review by the Regular Bench hearing the appeal.
5. In the result, the stay petition filed by the assessee is allowed.
The above order was pronounced in the open court on 13th Mar, 2015.
13th Mar, 2015
( /JOGINDER SINGH) (.. ,/ B.R. BASKARAN)
/ Judicial Member /Accountant Member
Mumbai: 13 Mar,2015.
. ../ SRL , Sr. PS
/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. / The Appellant
2. / The Respondent.
3. () / The CIT(A)- concerned
4. / CIT concerned
5. , , /
DR, ITAT, Mumbai concerned
/ Guard file.
/ BY ORDER,
, /ITAT, Mumbai