IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "K" BENCH, MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM
SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER
(Arising from I.T.A. No.222/M/2014) (AY:2009-2010)
Goldman Sachs (India) Securities / DCIT-7(1)(1),
Private Limited, Mumbai.
951-A, Rational House,
Appasaheb Marathe Marg,
Prabhadevi, Mumbai -400 025.
./ PAN : AAFCA6819F
( /Appellant) .. ( / Respondent)
/ Appellant by : Shri Madhur Agarwal
/ Respondent by : Shri Maurya Pratap, DR
/ Date of Hearing : 14.8.2015
/Date of Pronouncement : 14.8.2015
/ O R D E R
PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM:
This stay application is filed by the assessee on 28.7.2015 and it arose from
ITA No. 222/M/2014 for the assessment year 2009-2010.
2. Before us, Shri Madhur Agarwal, Ld Counsel for the assessee mentioned that
vide this stay application, the assessee is seeking extension of stay which was
granted earlier in three occasions i.e., firstly on 31.1.2014 vide S.A. No.17/M/2014
and secondly on 1.8.2014 vide S.A. No.201/Mum/2014 and thirdly on 30.1.2015
vide S.A. No. 21/M/2015 (for a period of 180 days).
3. During the proceedings before us, Ld Counsel for the assessee demonstrated
that this is the fourth extension of stay of demand and there is no change in the
facts. In this regard, he relied on the facts and conclusions narrated by the Tribunal
in earlier Stay Application proceedings vide paras 3 to 5 of the Tribunal's order dated
30.1.2015 (supra). In the back ground of the above facts, it is the prayer of the Ld
Counsel for the assessee that the stay of demand may further be extended for a
period of 180 days or disposal of the appeal, whichever is earlier.
4. On the other hand, Ld DR has objected the assessee's prayer for further
extension of the stay and insisted that the assessee may be asked to pay some
amount out of the outstanding demand in the interest of Revenue.
5. We have heard both the parties and perused the earlier orders of the Tribunal
dated 30.1.2015 (supra) and find that there is no change in the facts. Considering
the submissions of both the parties and the conclusions narrated in the earlier orders
of the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case for further extension. As
such, the delay in disposal of the case is not attributable to the assessee. In fact,
this case was fixed for hearing on 4.11.2015. Considering the same, we are of the
opinion that this is a fit case to extend the stay of demand for a further period of
180 days from the date of this order or disposal of appeal whichever is earlier.
Accordingly, Stay Application filed by the assessee is allowed.
6. In the result, Stay Application filed by the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 14th August, 2015 immediately after
completion of hearing.
(SANJAY GARG) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
.../ OKK , Sr. PS
/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. / The Appellant
2. / The Respondent.
3. () / The CIT(A)-
4. / CIT
5. , , / DR,
6. / Guard file.
/ BY ORDER,
/ (Dy./Asstt. Registrar)
, / ITAT, Mumbai