GOODYEAR INDIA LIMITED,HARYANA V. JAO - ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), DELHI, NEW DELHI

SA 425/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Goodyear India Ltd., the appellant, seeking an extension of stay on the recovery of an outstanding demand amounting to Rs.20.50 crores for the Assessment Year 2021-22. The initial stay was granted by the Tribunal on 21.02.2025 for 180 days or until the disposal of the appeal. The appeal was adjourned and subsequently stayed sine die due to ongoing legal proceedings concerning the limitation issue, which is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Tribunal considered the circumstances of the case, including the adjournments requested by the Departmental Representative and the pending decision of a larger bench of the Supreme Court on the limitation aspect.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 717067 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 22-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Appeal Filed On: 14-08-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Roca Bathroom Products vs. Unknown
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHISHEK DEAVEL
• Assessee Lawyers: NEERAJ JAIN; RICHA AGARWAL
• Keywords: Application of stay; Extension of stay

Judgement Text

"SA.No.425/Del/2025 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “H” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Stay Appl.No.425/Del/2025 (Arising out of ITA No.5212/Del/2024) िनधा\u0005रणवष\u0005/Assessment Year:2021-22 GOODYEAR INDIA LTD., Mathura Road, Ballabgarh, Faridabad, Haryana. बनाम Vs. JAO – ACIT(OSD), New Delhi. PAN No. AAACG3511H अपीलाथ\u0011 Appellant \u0013\u0014यथ\u0011/Respondent Assessee by Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Richa Agarwal, CA Revenue by Shri Abhishek Deavel, Sr. DR सुनवाईक\bतारीख/ Date of hearing: 22.08.2025 उ\u000eोषणाक\bतारीख/Pronouncement on 22.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M. Through this stay application the assessee is seeking extension of stay of recovery of outstanding demand for the AY 2021-22. 2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Tribunal vide stay order dated 21.02.2025 granted stay of outstanding demand for a period of 180 days or disposal of appeal, whichever is earlier. It is Printed from counselvise.com SA.No.425/Del/2025 2 submitted that the quantum appeal initially fixed for hearing on 25.02.2025 was adjourned to 19.03.2025 at the request of the Departmental Representative. Ld. Counsel submitted that on 19.03.2025 the Hon’ble Bench adjourned the appeal sine die at the request of the Ld. DR as the assessee challenged the order of the Assessing Officer on limitation in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Roca Bathroom Products pending SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Ld. Counsel submits that the stay expired on 20.08.2025 and therefore the assessee is moving this stay application for extension of stay of outstanding demand for the AY 2021-22 which may kindly be granted. 3. Heard rival contentions and perused the order of the Tribunal dated 21.02.2025 in SA No.79/Del/2025. The Tribunal vide order dated 21.02.2025 had granted stay on recovery of balance outstanding demand of Rs.20.50 crores for a period of 180 days or till the disposal of appeal in ITA No.5212/Del/2024 whichever is earlier. Subsequently the appeal got adjourned at the request of the Ld. DR to 19.03.2025 and on which date the Tribunal adjourned the appeal sine die since the assessee challenged the order of the AO on limitation and the issue is subjudice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of SLP filed by the Department against the decision of the Hon’ble Madras Printed from counselvise.com SA.No.425/Del/2025 3 High Court in the case of Roca Bathroom Products. The appeal now stands posed for hearing on 16.09.2025. 4. We are given to understand that the Hon’ble Supreme Court recently passed an order in the SLP filed by the Revenue, wherein divergent views were expressed by the Hon’ble Judges on the limitation aspect and there is no final outcome of the judgment and the same is now to be decided by a larger bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 5. Therefore, since the delay in disposal of appeal is not attributable to the assessee, we hereby grant extension of stay of recovery on outstanding demand for a period of 180 days or till disposal of appeal, whichever is earlier. 6. In the result, stay application filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 22/08/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (C.N. PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 22/08/2025 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S. Printed from counselvise.com SA.No.425/Del/2025 4 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "