Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, V. Maximize Learning Pvt. Ltd., Pune

MA 77/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2190 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 11-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 07-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VERMA
• Keywords: Application of stay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A , PUNE BEFORE: SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA NO. 7 7 /PN/2014 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO S. 2234 & 2235/PN/ 20 12 ) ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 0 7 - 08 & 2008 - 09 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 11(2), PUNE VS. MAXIMIZE LEARNING PVT. LTD., BASEMENT NO. 34, ADM - 166SQT BU, LOWER FLOOR, EAST STREET, GALLERIA PREMISES CHSL, HOUSE NO. 2421, CAMP, PUNE (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AAACC7416K APPELLANT BY: SMT. M.S. VERMA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI KETAN VED DATE OF HEARING : 11 - 07 - 2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11 - 0 7 - 2014 ORDER PER R.S . PADVEKAR , JM : - THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE REVENUE U/S. 254(2) OF T HE INCOME - TAX ACT BY STATING THAT GRANTING/EXTENDING THE STAY IN THE STAY APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING SA NOS. 01 & 02/PN/2014 VIDE ORDER DATED 08 - 01 - 2014 IS FOR A PERIOD MORE THAN 365 DAYS WHICH IN VIEW OF T HIRD P ROVISO TO SEC. 254(2A) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT IS NOT CORRECT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW . 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES. ADMITTEDLY, AT THE FIRST INSTANCE THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST IN SA NOS. 01 & 02/PN/2014 ORDER DATED 08 - 01 - 2014 EXTENDING THE ST AY EARLIER GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE AS THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE DISPOSED OFF. WHILE EXTENDING THE STAY THE TRIBUNAL HAS CATEGORICALLY NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE COMPLIANCE WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL BY MAKING THE NE CESSARY PAYMENTS AND THE 2 MA NO. 7 7 /PN/2014, MAXIMIZE LEARNING PVT. LTD., PUNE DELAY IN NON - DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL IS NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS COME FOR THE CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT - II, PUNE VS. PTC SOFTWARE (I) PRIVATE LIMI TED INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 1927 OF 2012 VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 28 - 02 - 2013 FOLLOWING THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RONUK INDUSTRIES LTD. 333 ITR 99 (BOM) DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS FRAMED THE FOLLOWING QUEST IONS OF LAW IN THE SAID APPEAL: A) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE TRIBUNAL DID NOT ERR IN EXTENDING THE STAY BEYOND A PERIOD OF 365 DAYS, CONTRAVENING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961? B) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE TRIBUNAL DID NOT ERR IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE INTENTION BEHIND THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 254(2A) IS TO LIMIT THE MAXIMUM PERIOD OF STAY WHICH CAN BE GRANTED BY THE TRIBUNAL TO 365 DAYS, BY VIRTUE OF WHICH THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER TO GRANT STAY BEYOND A PERIOD OF 365 DAYS? C) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE TRIBUNAL DID NOT ERR IN RELYING ON THE DECISION OF TATA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED, 295 ITR 22 FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF RONAK INDUSTRIES LIMITED 333 ITR 99 WHICH HAS BEEN DECIDED FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF NARANG OVERSEAS P LIMITED, 295 ITR 22 (BOMBAY), WHEREIN THE 2008 AMENDMENT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2A) HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED AS THE ORDER WAS DELIV ERED ON 30 - 07 - 2007 I.E. MUCH BEFORE THE AMENDMENT? 3. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT DISMISSED THE APPEAL AND RELEVANT REASONING OF THEIR L ORDSHIPS IS AS UNDER: 3. THE TRIBUNAL HAS EXTENDED THE PERIOD OF STAY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN THE MATTER O F COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V/S. RONUK INDUSTRIES LIMITED REPORTED IN (2011) 333 ITR 99 (BOM). 3 MA NO. 7 7 /PN/2014, MAXIMIZE LEARNING PVT. LTD., PUNE IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE SEE NO REASON TO ENTERTAIN THE PROPOSED QUESTIONS OF LAW. 4. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE AS ON ME RIT ITSELF THE APPLICATION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE . WE ALSO DO NOT CONSIDER IT NECESSARY TO DEAL WITH THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT AGAINST INTERIM STAY ORDER NO APPLICATION CAN BE FILED U/S. 254(2) OF THE ACT. 5 . IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLI CATION FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 - 07 - 201 4 SD/ - SD/ - ( G.S. PAN NU ) ( R.S. PADVEKAR ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER RK /PS PUNE , DATED : 11 TH JULY, 2014 COPY TO 1 ASSESSEE 2 DEPARTMENT 3 THE CIT - I, PUNE 4 THE DR, ITAT, A BENCH, PUNE. 5 GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE