ACIT RG 4(3)(1), MUMBAI V. J.P. MORGAN INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

MA 187/MUM/2023

AI Insights

The case involves the Income Tax Department (Revenue) challenging the continuation of a stay on demand granted to J.P. Morgan India Pvt. Ltd. The stay was initially granted for six months and was extended but the Revenue sought to dismiss the extension beyond 365 days, citing the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal heard arguments from both the Departmental Representative and the Authorized Representative of the assessee, focusing on the attribution of delay in the disposal of the appeal. The Tribunal concluded that the delay was not due to the assessee, thus allowing the stay to continue.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 299740 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 16-04-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: K
• Next Hearing Date: 02-03-2023
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 19-02-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 2(A); 22

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM M A N o . 1 87/ M u m/ 2 0 2 3 (A ri s in g ou t o f S A N o. 111/ M u m / 20 22 ) (A ri s i n g ou t o f IT A N o. 10 75 / M u m/ 20 2 2) ( A s s e ss me nt Y ea r: 20 1 0- 11 ) DCIT, Range 4(3)(1) Room No. 649, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 V s. J. P. Morgan India Pvt. Ltd. J. P. Morgan Tower Off CST Road, Kalina, Santacruz (E), Mumbai-400 098 P A N / G I R N o. AA A CJ 10 2 2 G (Applicant) : (Respondent) Applicant by : Shri Jeet Kamdar Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha D a te o f H e a r i n g : 03.03.2023 D ate of P ro n ou n ce me n t : 17.04.2023 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the Revenue, challenging the order in SA No. 111/Mum/2022 (arising out of ITA No. 1075/Mum/2015), wherein the Revenue as prayed for non granting of further stay and also to decide the above mentioned appeal at the earliest. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Revenue has filed the said miscellaneous application where the stay has been granted beyond the limit of 365 days and has relied on the last proviso to section 254(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act for short) and the third proviso to section 254 clause 2(a) of the Act, wherein the stay on demand stands 2 M A N o . 1 8 7 / M u m / 2 0 2 3 ( A . Y . 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 ) DCIT vs. J. P. Morgan India Pvt. Ltd. vacated after the expiry of 365 days even in case where the delay in disposal of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee. It is observed that in the present case, the stay was granted for a period of six months from the date of the order, i.e., 07.08.2015. 3. The learned Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) for the Revenue contended that the stay shall not be extended further and that the appeal may be disposed off at the earliest. 4. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR for short) for the assessee, on the other hand, contended that the delay in disposing of the appeal was not attributable to the assessee and prayed that the Miscellaneous Application by dismissed. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is observed that the assessee has filed the stay application seeking for stay of outstanding demand of Rs.11,52,40,020/- and the Tribunal had extended the stay vide its order dated 26.08.2022. It is observed that the delay in disposing of the appeal was not attributable to the assessee and this fact was also not controverted by the ld. DR. Hence, from the above observation, we are of the considered view that the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue does not hold merit. 6. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 17.04.2023.............. Sd/- Sd/- (Prashant Maharishi) (Kavitha Rajagopal) Accountant Member Judicial Member Mumbai; Dated : 17.04.2023 Roshani , Sr. PS 3 M A N o . 1 8 7 / M u m / 2 0 2 3 ( A . Y . 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 ) DCIT vs. J. P. Morgan India Pvt. Ltd. Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT - concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard File BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai