ADIT, New Delhi V. Oracle Systems Corporation, New Delhi

MA 306/DEL/2022

AI Insights

The case involves the Revenue's appeal to recall an order dated 15.07.2022, which extended the stay on recovery of outstanding tax demands from Oracle Systems Corporation for various assessment years. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal erred by not directing the assessee to pay 20% of the disputed demand as required under section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal, however, upheld the original decision, stating that the order was an interlocutory one, and the issues raised by the Revenue did not constitute a mistake apparent on the record, thus not warranting a recall under section 254(2).

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 300620 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 29-01-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 24-11-2022
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 20-10-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Application of stay; Extension of stay
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. No.306/Del/2022 [Arising out of ITA No.1833/Del/2009] Assessment Year: 2001-02 With M.A. No.307/Del/2022 [Arising out of ITA No.1834/Del/2009] Assessment Year: 2002-03 With M.A. No.308/Del/2022 [Arising out of ITA No.1835/Del/2009] Assessment Year: 2003-04 With M.A. No.309/Del/2022 [Arising out of ITA No.1836/Del/2009] Assessment Year: 2004-05 With M.A. No.310/Del/2022 [Arising out of ITA No.3313/Del/2013] Assessment Year: 2005-06 With M.A. No.311/Del/2022 [Arising out of ITA No.3314/Del/2013] Assessment Year: 2006-07 With M.A. No.312/Del/2022 [Arising out of ITA No.5671/Del/2011] Assessment Year: 2007-08 With M.A. No.313/Del/2022 [Arising out of ITA No.4054/Del/2014] Assessment Year: 2008-09 With M.A. No.314/Del/2022 [Arising out of ITA No.1974/Del/2014] M.A. Nos.306 to 317/Del/2022 2 | P a g e Assessment Year: 2009-10 With M.A. No.315/Del/2022 [Arising out of ITA No.2088/Del/2017] Assessment Year: 2010-11 With M.A. No.316/Del/2022 [Arising out of ITA No.2089/Del/2017] Assessment Year: 2011-12 With M.A. No.317/Del/2022 [Arising out of ITA No.2090/Del/2017] Assessment Year: 2012-13 ADIT, Circle-2(1), International Taxation, New Delhi Vs. Oracle Systems Corporation, C/o Pricewater House Coopers Pvt. Ltd., Gate No. 2, 2 nd Floor, Sucheta Bhawan, 11-A, Vishnu Digamber Marg, New Delhi PAN :AAACO0207A (Applicant) (Respondent) ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM: Captioned applications have been filed by the Revenue seeking recall of order dated 15.07.2022 passed by the Tribunal in S.A. Nos.201 to 212/Del/2022. Applicant by Sh. Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR Respondent by Sh. G.C. Srivastava, Advocate Sh. Kalrav Malhotra, Advocate Date of hearing 25.11.2022 Date of pronouncement 30.01.2023 M.A. Nos.306 to 317/Del/2022 3 | P a g e 2. It is the case of the Revenue that there is a mistake apparent in the order of the Tribunal, as, while granting stay the Tribunal has not directed the assessee to pay 20% of the disputed demand in terms of section 254(2A) of the Act. 3. We have heard Sh. G.C. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the assessee and Sh. Abhishek Kumar, learned Departmental Representative. Admittedly, the order sought to be recalled/rectified by the Revenue is an order extending stay on recovery of outstanding demand granted earlier. While considering the initial stay applications filed by the assessee, the Tribunal took note of the prima facie case, balance of convenience and other relevant factors to grant conditional stay to the assessee. Subsequently, stay granted initially was extended. Thus, the order passed by the Tribunal while granting stay is in the nature of an interlocutory order. While passing interlocutory order in the matter of recovery of demand, the factors which required consideration were considered by the Tribunal. Thus, while disposing of the applications seeking extension of stay, the Tribunal took a conscious decision to pass order for extending stay. That being the case, it cannot come within the purview of section 254(2) of the Act, which permits rectification of mistake M.A. Nos.306 to 317/Del/2022 4 | P a g e apparent on the fact of record. In case, Revenue is aggrieved with the order of the Tribunal, it certainly can take remedial measures in the superior court but definitely not by filing miscellaneous application. Thus, we are of the view that the present applications filed by the Revenue are devoid of merit, hence, deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, we do so. 4. In the result, the miscellaneous applications are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30 th January, 2023 Sd/- Sd/- (G.S. PANNU) (SAKTIJIT DEY) PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 30 th January, 2023. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi