Msc Mediterranean Shipping Company ... vs Assessee
- CitationITA No.8690/Mum./2011
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an interim stay of collection of demand has been granted pending appeal, and the hearing of the appeal has been repeatedly adjourned at the instance of the Revenue or without any fault attributable to the assessee, the stay may be extended for a further period of six months or until disposal of the appeal, whichever is earlier, the adjournments not being attributable to the assessee.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
MSC Mediterranean Shipping बनाम/ Asstt. Director of Income Tax Co., S.A. Vs. (International Taxation)-4(1) C/o MSC Agency (I) Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai MSC House, Andheri-Kurla Road Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 059 (अपीलाथ /Appellant) .. ( यथ / Respondent)
थायी ले ख ा सं . /जीआइआर सं . /PAN/GIR No. : AACCM4945P
अपीलाथ ओर से / Appellant by Shri Nishant Thakkar
यथ क ओर से/Respondent by Shri Neil Philip
सन ु वाई क तार ख / Date of Hearing : 2.1.2015 घोषणा क तार ख /Date of Pronouncement : 2.1.2015 आदे श / O R D E R
Per B.R.BASKARAN, Accountant Member:
By filing these Stay Applications, the assessee seeks extension of stay of collection of outstanding demand relating to assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 granted by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal, vide its order dated 27.6.2014. The previous stay passed by the Tribunal is placed at pages 137 and 138 of the paper book filed by the assessee. From the said order, we notice that the appeals were posted for hearing on 5.7.2014 subsequent to the stay order mentioned above.
SA No.385 and 386/M/2014 2
2. The ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the appeals were adjourned from time to time for various reasons and at any point of time, the assessee did not seek adjournment. The chronology of the events that took placed has been mentioned as under in the petition filed by the assessee:
"1.18 On 15 July 2014, the Petitioner was again ready to argue the appeal. However, the learned DR once again sought an adjournment on the ground that Revenue's Special Counsel is busy with a hearing scheduled before the Hon'ble Tribunal in Bangalore and hence not available. Acceding to the request, the Hon'ble Bench adjourned the appeal to 8 September 2014 as the same was convenient to Revenue's Special Counsel.
1.19 On 8 September 2014, the Hon'ble 'L' Bench was not functioning and hence the captioned appeal was adjourned to 17 September 2014.
1.20 On 17 September 2014, the Hon'ble 'L' Bench was not functioning and hence the captioned appeal was adjourned to 30 September 2014.
1.21 On 30 September 2014, the Hon'ble 'L' Bench was not functioning and hence the captioned appeal was adjourned to 8 October 2014.
1.22 On 8 October 2014, the hearing was taken up by the Hon'ble Bench for only AY 2004-05 since the Revenue's Special Counsel was not briefed for the other subsequent years (i.e. AY 2005-06 to 2009-10). Counsels from both side concluded their arguments on the date of hearing. The Hon'b!e Bench rescheduled the hearing for the other years in appeal (i.e. AY 2005-06 to AY 2009-10) on 2 December 2014.
1.23 On 2 December 2014, the Hon'ble 'L' Bench was not functioning and hence the captioned appeal was adjourned to 9 December 2014.
1.24 On 9 December 2014, the Petitioners submitted before the Hon'ble Bench that order for AY 2004-05, wherein the same issue is involved, was awaited and therefore the appeals (for AY 2005-06 to AY 2009-10) be heard once the order for AY 2004-05 is pronounced. Acceding to the request, the Hon'ble Bench adjourned the appeals to 9 February 2015"
3. Accordingly, the ld. Counsel submitted that there was no fault on the part of the assessee and accordingly sought for extension of stay.
4. The ld. DR did not dispute the facts narrated by the ld. counsel for the assessee.
5. Having regard to the submissions made before us, we are of the view that the Stay granted by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, vide its order dated SA No.385 and 386/M/2014 3
27.6.2014, deserves extension. Accordingly, we order that the entire outstanding demand be stayed for a period of six months or till the disposal of the impugned appeals whichever period expires earlier.
6. In the result, the stay applications for extension of time filed by the assessee are allowed.
. The above order was pronounced in the open court on 2nd Jan 2015.
nd घोषणा खल ु े यायालय म दनांकः 2 Jan 2015 को क गई ।
sd sd ( ववेक वमा / VIVEK VARMA) (बी.आर.बा करन / B.R. BASKARAN) या यक सद य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
nd मंब ु ई Mumbai: 2 Jan 2015.
व. न.स./ SRL , Sr. PS
आदे श क त ल प अ े षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant
2. यथ / The Respondent.
3. आयकर आयु त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- concerned
4. आयकर आयु त / CIT concerned
5. वभागीय त न ध, आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai concerned
6. गाड फाईल / Guard file.
आदे शानस ु ार/ BY ORDER, true copy सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, मुंबई /ITAT, Mumbai
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free