" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘I’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA No. 156/DEL/2023 (ITA No. 1732/DEL/2022 [A.Y. 2018-19]) The A.C.I.T Vs. Siegwerk India Pvt Ltd Circle – 22(2) S-7, Okhla Industrial Area New Delhi Phase - 2, New Delhi PAN – AAACG 4845 N (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Mansha Bhalla, CA Department By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 04.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 04.04.2025 ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, A.M:- This Miscellaneous Application has been by filed the Revenue u/s 254(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 [for short, 'the Act'] against the stay order of this Bench of the Tribunal dated 05.08.2022 in SA No. 243/DEL/2022 for Assessment Year 2018-19. MA No. 156/DEL/2023 M/s Sigwerk India Pvt Ltd Page 2 of 4 2. In this Miscellaneous Application the ld. DR vehemently contended that the ITAT directed the assessee to pay 15% of the outstanding demand and subject to the payment of the aforesaid amount, the ITAT stayed the recovery of balance outstanding demand for a period of 180 days from the date of this order or till the disposal of the corresponding appeal, whichever is earlier and allowed the stay. 3. It is the say of the ld. DR that as per the second proviso to sub-section (2A) to section 254 of the Act, stay may be granted subject to the condition that the assessee deposits not less than 20% of the amount of tax payable under the provisions of the Act. The ld. DR therefore, requested to consider the stay and advice the assessee to pay 20% of the outstanding tax, interest, penalty, etc. 4. The ld. counsel for the assessee contended that stay was granted after considering the prima facie of the case and balance of convenience in favour of the assessee. MA No. 156/DEL/2023 M/s Sigwerk India Pvt Ltd Page 3 of 4 5. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the Stay order passed by the Tribunal, we find that proviso to section 254(2A) of the Act stipulates that the ITAT ‘may’ pass an order of stay. The proviso is, therefore, directory and it does not lay down mandatory directions for imposing conditions of deposits of not less than 20% of the amount of tax. We, therefore, hold that there is no mistake apparent from record and accordingly the Miscellaneous Application by the Revenue is dismissed. 6. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application of the Revenue is dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 04.04.2025. Sd/- Sd/- [MADHUMITA ROY] [NAVEEN CHANDRA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 04th APRIL, 2024. VL/ MA No. 156/DEL/2023 M/s Sigwerk India Pvt Ltd Page 4 of 4 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) Asst. Registrar, 5. DR ITAT, New Delhi Sl No. PARTICULARS DATES 1. Date of dictation of Tribunal Order .04.2025 2. Date on which the typed draft Tribunal Order is placed before the Dictation Member .04.2025 3. Date on which the typed draft Tribunal Order is placed before the other Member 4. Date on which the approved draft Tribunal Order comes to the Sr. P.S./P.S. 5. Date on which the fair Tribunal Order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement 6. Date on which the signed order comes back to the Sr. P.S./P.S 7. Date on which the final Tribunal Order is uploaded by the Sr. P.S./P.S. on official website 8. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk alongwith Tribunal Order 9. Date of killing off the disposed of files on the judiSIS portal of ITAT by the Bench Clerks 10. Date on which the file goes to the Supervisor (Judicial) 11. The date on which the file goes for xerox 12. The date on which the file goes for endorsement 13. The date on which the file goes to the Superintendent for checking 14. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the Tribunal order 15. Date on which the file goes to the dispatch section 16. Date of Dispatch of the Order "