"               "   
     IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "K" BENCH, MUMBAI

       ,        ,                                        
     BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM

                           ./SA No. 228/Mum/2015
                         (Arising out of ITA No. 588/Mum/2015)
                     (   / Assessment Year: 2010-11)
Safilo India Private Limited              Dy. CIT ­ 15(3)(2),
1201/02/03, Meridian Business Centre,     Mumbai
                                      /
Plot No. 27, Sector 30A, Opp. Sanpada
Railway Station, Vashi,               Vs.
Navi Mumbai-400 705
     . /  . /PAN/GIR No. AAFCS 4638 G
               (Applicant)             :             (Respondent)
                          Applicant by        :     Shri Niraj Sheth
                         Respondent by        :     Shri Sumit Kumar

                      /
                                              :     21.08.2015
                   Date of Hearing
                      /
                                              :     21.08.2015
           Date of Pronouncement

                                     / O R D E R
Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.:
       This is a Stay Application by the Assessee qua its appeal preferred before the
Tribunal on 28.01.2015 in respect of its assessment under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (`the
Act' hereinafter) for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2010-11.




2.     Opening the arguments, it was submitted by the ld. Authorized Representative
(AR), the assessee's counsel, that the stay was initially granted in the instant case by the
Tribunal vide its order dated 24.02.2015 (at paper-book pgs. 76-78). Taking us through
the operative part of the said order, wherein the condition of payment stands also
stipulated, he demonstrated the said payment with reference to the challans (pgs. 79-80 of
                                              2
                                                           SA No. 228/Mum/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11)
                                                           Safilo India Private Limited vs. Dy. CIT

the PB). Further, as regards the hearing, the same could not take place as there were
common issues with the assessment for the preceding two years, i.e., A.Ys. 2008-09 and
2009-10. And toward which he would take us to the Directions by the Dispute Resolution
Panel (DRP) u/s.144C(5) of the Act dated 30.10.2014 (placed at PB pgs. 29-37), wherein,
vide para 18, it follows its directions for A.Y. 2008-09. The appeal was, accordingly,
clubbed for hearing along with the said earlier two years. Subsequent to the stay order,
appeals for all the three years were posted for hearing on 11.05.2015 and 28.05.2015, on
which dates the hearing could not take place, and are now posted for 07.09.2015. On this
basis, it was submitted by him that the conditions of stay have been complied with, as
well as that the non-hearing of the appeal, i.e., up to the expiry of the stay (23.08.2015),
cannot be attributed to the assessee and, therefore, the stay be extended. The ld.
Departmental Representative (DR) would object, stating that the assessee had not brought
the fact of the appeal for this year being linked with that for the earlier years to the notice
of the tribunal at the time of hearing of its instant stay application on 20.02.2015 and,
therefore, it is responsible for the non-hearing of its appeal. Further stay, therefore, ought
not to be granted, and the instant stay application be dismissed. The Bench, at this stage,
enquired from the ld. AR if the earlier two years were also stay granted matters, to which
he replied in the negative.

3.     We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. The assessee-
applicant, in our view, ought to have placed full facts before the tribunal at the time of
hearing of its stay application. If the appeal for this year had necessarily or preferably to
be heard together with the matters ­ in-as-much as the decision for this year would be
consequential, which are not priority (for hearing) matters, how could the stay be
effective? Stay is an extraordinary and interim measure adopted to balance the interest of
the litigating parties. The tribunal could, in that case, have given the direction/s in the
matter, facilitating earlier hearing, so that the appeal gets decided within the period of
stay. Be that as it may, we, under the circumstances, consider it appropriate to grant
further stay subject to the payment of another sum of `25 lacs by the assessee by
                                              3
                                                          SA No. 228/Mum/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11)
                                                          Safilo India Private Limited vs. Dy. CIT




30.09.2015. The condition of payment, however, would operate only in the event of the
hearing of the instant appeal being not concluded by 30.09.2015. Needless to add, the
assessee shall also not seek adjournment, except for a just and sufficient cause. Subject to
these conditional directions, we extend the stay for another period of six months or the
disposal of the appeal, whichever is earlier. We decide accordingly.

4.     In the result, the assessee's stay application is allowed on the afore-said terms.
            Order pronounced in the open court at the conclusion of the hearing.
           Sd/-                                           Sd/-
      (Vijay Pal Rao)                                (Sanjay Arora)
         / Judicial Member                             / Accountant Member
 Mumbai;  Dated : 21.08.2015
. ../Roshani, Sr. PS
         /Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1.  / The Applicant
2.  / The Respondent
3.     () / The CIT(A)
4.      / CIT - concerned
5.                 ,     ,  / DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6.     / Guard File
                                                     / BY ORDER,


                                               /  (Dy./Asstt. Registrar)
                                           ,   / ITAT, Mumbai