THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 18.05.2015
+      W.P.(C) 4902/2015

SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC INDIA PRIVATE LTD                           ... Petitioner

                                         Versus


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI                                         ... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Pawan Kumar with Mr Prakash Kumar
For the Respondent : Mr Rohit Madan

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

                                       JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
CM 8871/2015
        Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
WP(C) 4902/2015 & CM 8870/2015
1.      Issue notice. Notice is accepted by the learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the respondents. Since the facts are not in dispute, the matter is

taken up for hearing at the first instance itself.







2.     The petitioner has filed an appeal being ITA No. 937/Del/2014

before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal being aggrieved by the assessment



WPC 4902/2015                                                         Page 1 of 3
order. The Tribunal, at the initial stage, that is, on 13.05.2014, had granted

stay of the demand which had been raised subsequent to the said

assessment order, subject to certain conditions which have been fulfilled by

the petitioner.


3.     A subsequent order dated 14.11.2014 was passed by the Tribunal

extending the interim stay. By virtue of the decision of a Division Bench of

this Court in CIT v. Maruti Suzuki (India) Limited: [WP(C) 5086/2013]

decided on 21.02.2014, it is made clear that the Tribunal has no authority

to extend the period of stay beyond a period of 365 days from the initial

date of grant of stay. As 365 days elapsed on 12.05.2015, the petitioner

cannot approach the Tribunal for any further extension of stay. It is also to

be noted that, in the meanwhile, the petitioner's said appeal before the

Tribunal was listed for hearing but could not be taken up for reasons not

attributable to the petitioner. Now, the appeal is listed for hearing on

28.07.2015.







4.     It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has approached this

Court by way of this writ petition seeking extension of stay in respect of

the assessment year 2009-10 till the disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before us several orders



WPC 2358/2015                                                    Page 2 of 3
passed by this court, whereby this Court has extended the stay initially

granted by the Tribunal till the disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal in

exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In fact, it is

settled law that there is no bar for grant of such a relief if the Court is of the

opinion that the circumstances and the ends of justice so warrant. This has

also been stated clearly in Maruti Suzuki (supra).


5.      We feel that since the petitioner had already been granted conditional

stay by the Tribunal in respect of the said appeal and that the Tribunal is in

the midst of hearing the appeal, it would be in the interest of justice that the

stay order granted by the Tribunal is continued till the disposal of the appeal

by the Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly. The writ petition stands disposed

of.

       Dasti under the signature of the Court Master.



                                         BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J



MAY 18, 2015                               SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
SR




WPC 4902/2015                                                       Page 3 of 3