IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, PRESIDENT & SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Miscellaneous Application Nos. 190 to 197 /Del/2022 & Miscellaneous Application Nos. 206 to 213 /Del/2022 (In ITA Nos.1829 to 1836/Del/2009) Assessment Years: 1997-98 to 2004-05 ADIT, Circle-2(1), New Delhi. Vs. Oracle System Corporation, C/o Pricewater House Coopers Pvt. Ltd., Gate No. 2, 2 nd Cloor, Sucheta Bhawan, 11-A, Vishnu Digamber Marg, New Delhi PIN: 1100 02 PAN :AAACO0207A (Appellant) (Respondent) Miscellaneous Application Nos. 198 to 205 /Del/2022 & Miscellaneous Application Nos. 214 to 221 /Del/2022 (In ITA Nos.3313 & 3314/Del/2013, 5671/Del/2011, 4054 & 1974/Del/2014, 2088 to 2090/Del/2017) Assessment Years: 2005-06 to 2012-13 DDIT/ADIT, Circle-2(1), New Delhi. Vs. Oracle System Corporation, C/o Pricewater House Coopers Pvt. Ltd., Gate No. 2, 2 nd Cloor, Sucheta Bhawan, 11-A, Vishnu Digamber Marg, New Delhi PIN: 1100 02 PAN :AAACO0207A (Appellant) (Respondent) 2 M.A.Nos.190 TO 221/Del/2022 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Captioned applications have been filed by the Revenue seeking recall/rectification of consolidated order dated 07.01.2022 passed in SA Nos. 3 to 18/Del/2022 and consolidated order dated 28.02.2022 passed in MA Nos. 7 to 18/Del/2022. However, all these applications pertain to assessment years 1997-98 to 2012-13. MA Nos.190 to 205/Del/2022 : 2. This batch of miscellaneous applications have been filed to recall/rectify order dated 07.01.2022 passed in SA Nos.3 to 18/Del/2022. 3. We have heard Shri Om Prakash, learned Senior DR and Shri G. C. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the assessee. These applications have been filed by the Revenue on 26.07.2022 seeking recall/rectification of an order passed on 07.01.2022. While disposing Assessee by Sh. G.C. Srivastava, Adv. Respondent by Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of hearing 09.09.2022 Date of pronouncement 21.09.2022 3 M.A.Nos.190 TO 221/Del/2022 of a batch of stay applications filed by the assessee in the aforesaid consolidated order, the Bench had granted conditional stay by directing assessee to fulfill the conditions as enumerated in paragraph no.5 of the order. However, as would be evident from paragraph no.6 of the order, conditional stay was granted for a period of 180 days from the date of the order or till the disposal of the appeals, whichever is earlier. It is a fact on record that 180 days from the date of stay order has expired on 07.07.2022, whereas, the appeals are still pending. Thus, it is patent and obvious, by the time of filing of the present applications, the stay order passed on 07.01.2022 has spent its force due to efflux of time. Therefore, the present applications filed by the Revenue, having become infructuous, deserve to be dismissed. Accordingly, we do so. M.A. Nos.206 to 221/Del/2022 : 4. This batch of applications have been filed by the Revenue to recall/rectify order dated 28.02.2022 passed in MA Nos. 7 to 22/Del/2022. It is the case of the Revenue in these applications that in terms with provisions contained under Section 254(2A) of the Act, the Tribunal can allow stay only if the assessee has pays 20% of the entire 4 M.A.Nos.190 TO 221/Del/2022 disputed demand. In other words, Revenue wants to submit that the Tribunal has no power to go beyond the provision contained under sub-section(2A) of section 254 of the Act. 5. Having considered rival submissions on the issue, we are of the view that the present applications filed by the Revenue deserve to be dismissed on the preliminary ground that no application under Section 254(2) of the Act can be maintained against an order passed under Section 254(2) of the Act. Even, otherwise also, the order passed by the Tribunal is in the nature of an interlocutory passed upon consideration of various factors, including, prima facie case, balance of convenience and the injury that may be caused to the parties due to grant or non-grant of stay. The order passed by the Tribunal is backed by proper reasoning. There is no mistake, much less, a mistake apparent on the face of record on the order passed by the Tribunal. If the Revenue is aggrieved with the decision of the Tribunal, the remedy lies elsewhere and not by taking recourse under Section 254(2) of the Act. Thus, we do not find any merit in these applications filed by the Revenue. Accordingly, they are dismissed. 5 M.A.Nos.190 TO 221/Del/2022 6. To sum up, all the applications are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 21st September, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (G.S. PANNU ) (SAKTIJIT DEY) PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 21 st September, 2022. Mohan Lal Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi 6 M.A.Nos.190 TO 221/Del/2022 Sl. No. Particulars Date 1. Date of dictation (Order drafted through Dragon software): 14.09.2022 2. Date on which the draft of order is placed before the Dictating Member: 16.09.2022 3. Date on which the draft of order is placed before the other Member: .09.2022 4. Date on which the approved draft of order comes to the Sr. PS/PS: 21.09.2022 5. Date of which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement: 21.09.2022 6. Date on which the final order received after having been singed/pronounced by the Members: 21.09.2022 7. Date on which the final order is uploaded on the website of ITAT: 22.09.2022 8. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 22.09.2022 9. Date on which files goes to the Head Clerk: 10. Date on which file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order: 11. Date of dispatch of order: