ASST CIT 16(1), MUMBAI V. STAR INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

MA 84/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1025 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 14-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 05-02-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NISHANT SAMAIYA
• Keywords: Application of stay; Extension of stay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL J BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM M.A. NO. 84/MUM/2019 (ARISING OUT OF SA NO. 418/MUM/2018) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13) ACIT-16(1) ROOM NO.467, 4 TH FLOOR AAYKAR BHAWAN, M.K.ROAD MUMBAI-400 020 VS. STAR INDIA PVT.LTD STAR HOUSE, URMI ESTATE 95, GANPATRAO KADAM MARG LOWER PAREL (W) MUMBAI-400 013 PAN/GIR NO. AAACN1335Q ( APPELLANT ) : ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI NISHANT SAMAIYA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PORUS KAKA & DIVESH CHAWLA DATE OF HEARING : 07.03.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.03.2019 ORDER U/S. 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 PER SHAMIM YAHYA, A. M.: BY WAY OF THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION THE REVENU E HAS FILED APPLICATION U/S. 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT' FOR SHORT) AGAINST STAY GRANTED BY THIS TRIBUNAL TO THE ASSESS EE IN INCOME- TAX APPEAL NO. 1048/MUM/2017. 2. THE REVENUES GRIEVANCE IS THAT ITAT HAS EXCEEDE D IS JURISDICTION IN GRANTING STAY BEYOND 365 DAYS IN THIS CASE. IN THIS REGARD RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED UPON HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT DECI SION IN THE CASE OF 2 M.A. NO.84/MUM/2019 STAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ECOM GILL COFFEE TRADING PVT.LTD. FURTHER RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED UPON HONBLE APEX COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF ASIAN RE SURFACING OF ROAD AGENCY PVT.LTD. ANR. VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIG ATION. THE CONCLUDING SUBMISSIONS IN THIS REGARD ARE AS UNDER: 8.4 IN A RECENT LANDMARK CASE TAKEN UP BY THREE-JUD GE BENCH OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN ASIAN RESURFACING OF ROAD AGENCY PVT. LTD. ANR. VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, THE APEX COURT VIDE ITS JUDGEMENT DA TED 28.03.2018, HAS MADE A SIGNIFICANT VERDICT BY DIRECTING THAT IN ALL PENDING CASES WHER E STAY AGAINST PROCEEDINGS OF A CIVIL OR CRIMINAL TRIAL IS OPERATING, THE SAME WILL COME TO AN END ON EXPIRY OF SIX MONTHS FROM TODAY UNLESS IN AN EXCEPTIONAL CASE BY A SPEAKING ORDER SUCH STAY IS EXTENDED. OTHER KEY OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE BENCH ARE ENUMERATED BELOW : THAT THE HIGH COURT HAS JURISDICTION IN APPROPRIA TE CASE TO CONSIDER THE CHALLENGE AGAINST AN ORDER FRAMING CHARGE AND ALSO TO GRANT S TAY. TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY AND THE MANDATE OF ARTICLE 21 FOR SPEEDY JUSTICE IN CRIMINAL CASES, IF STAY IS GRANTED, MATT ER SHOULD BE TAKEN ON DAY-TO-DAY BASIS AND CONCLUDED WITHIN TWO- THREE MONTHS. WHERE THE MATTE R REMAINS PENDING FOR LONGER PERIOD, THE ORDER OF STAY WILL STAND VACATED ON EXPIRY OF S IX MONTHS, UNLESS EXTENSION IS GRANTED BY A SPEAKING ORDER SHOWING EXTRAORDINARY SITUATION WH ERE CONTINUING STAY WAS TO BE PREFERRED TO THE FINAL DISPOSAL OF TRIAL COURT. THI S TIMELINE IS BEING FIXED IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT SUCH TRIALS ARE EXPECTED TO BE CONCLUDED NORMA LLY IN ONE TO TWO YEARS. IN AN ATTEMPT TO REMEDY THIS, SITUATION, WE CONSI DER IT APPROPRIATE TO DIRECT THAT IN ALL PENDING CASES WHERE STAY AGAINST PROCEEDINGS OF A CIVIL OR CRIMINAL TRIAL IS OPERATING, THE SAME WILL COME TO AN END ON EXPIRY OF SIX MONTH S FROM TODAY UNLESS IN AN EXCEPTIONAL CASE BY A SPEAKING ORDER SUCH STAY IS EXTENDED. THAT FOR CASES WHERE STAY IS GRANTED IN FUTURE, T HE SAME WILL END ON EXPIRY OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF SUCH ORDER UNLESS SIMILAR E XTENSION IS GRANTED BY A SPEAKING ORDER. THE SPEAKING ORDER MUST SHOW THAT THE CASE WAS OF S UCH EXCEPTIONAL NATURE THAT CONTINUING THE .STAY WAS MORE IMPORTANT THAN HAVING THE TRIAL FINALIZED, THE TRIAL COURT WHERE ORDER OF STAY OF CIVIL OR CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IS PRODUCE D, MAY FIX A DATE NOT BEYOND SIX MONTHS OF THE ORDER OF STAY SO THAT ON EXPIRY OF PERIOD OF STAY, PROCEEDINGS CAN COMMENCE UNLESS ORDER OF EXTENSION OF STAY IS PRODUCED, FIRST AND FOREMOST, IT MUST BE APPRECIATED THAT T HE HIGH COURTS ARE ESTABLISHED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND ARE COURTS OF RECORD WHICH WIL L HAVE ALL POWERS OF SUCH COURTS, INCLUDING THE POWER TO PUNISH CONTEMPT OF THEMSELVE S (SEE ARTICLE 215), THE HIGH COURT, BEING A SUPERIOR COURT OF RECORD, IS ENTITLED TO CO NSIDER QUESTIONS REGARDING ITS OWN JURISDICTION WHEN RAISED BEFORE IT. WHEREVER STAY IS GRANTED, A SPEAKING ORDER MUST H E PASSED SHOWING THAT THE CASE WAS OF EXCEPTIONAL NATURE AND DELAY ON ACCOUNT OF S TAY WILL NOT PREJUDICE THE INTEREST OF SPEEDY TRIAL IN CORRUPTION CASE. ONCE STAY IS GRANT ED, PROCEEDINGS SHOULD NOT BE ADJOURNED AND CONCLUDED WITHIN TWO-THREE MONTHS. 3 M.A. NO.84/MUM/2019 STAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED * THAT THE HIGH COURT HAS JURISDICTION IN APPROPRIA TE CASE TO CONSIDER THE CHALLENGE AGAINST AN ORDER FRAMING CHARGE AND ALSO GRANT STAY BUT HOW SUCH POWER IS TO BE EXERCISED AND WHEN STAY OUGHT TO BE GRANTED NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERE D FURTHER. 8 4.1 THE APEX COURT ORDERED THAT ALL CASES HELD UP DUE TO A STAY ORDER WILL AUTOMATICALLY RESTART AT THE END OF SIX MONTHS FROM WEDNESDAY. IN EXCEPTIONAL CASES IF THE JUDGE THINKS THAT THE STAY ORDER SHOULD CONTINUE FOR SOME MORE T IME, THE JUDGE WOULD HAVE OUTLINE THE REASONS IN A WRITTEN ORDER. THE SIX-MONTH RULE WOUL D ALSO APPLY TO ALL STAY ORDERS GRANTED BY COURTS FROM NOW. 'IN CASES WHERE STAY IS GRANTED IN FUTURE, THE SAME WILL END ON EXPIRY OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF SUCH ORDER UNLESS SIMILAR EXTENSION IS GRANTED BY A SPEA KING ORDER. THE SPEAKING ORDER MUST SHOW THAT THE CASE W AS OF SUCH EXCEPTIONAL NATURE THAT CONTINUING THE STAY WAS MORE IMPORTANT THAN HAVING THE TRIAL FINALIZED, '' 8.4.2 IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE QUANTUM APPEAL FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1048/ MUM /2017 IS PENDING FOR DISPOSAL FOR A PERIOD OF MORE THAN 2 YEARS. THE SAID APPEAL WAS FILED ON 15,02.2017 AND THE STAY WAS GRANTED SINCE 21.02. 2017. SINCE THE SAID APPEAL WAS NOT DISPOSED, THE ASSESSEE IS AVAILING THE BENEFIT OF I NFINITE STAY ON RECOVERY OF THE DEMAND. 9. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS MOST HUMBLY PRAYED T HAT THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL MAY BE PLEASED TO RECALL THE IMPUGNED STAY ORDER AND VACAT E THE STAY GRANTED ACCORDINGLY. 10. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY, IF AN Y, CAUSED IN FILING THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS OCCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF BONA FIDE RE ASONS AND CANNOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO ANY NEGLIGENCE OR MALA FIDE INTENTION ON THE PART OF TH E APPLICANT. THAT THE DELAY IS NOT INTENTIONAL, DELIBERATE OR WANTON AND IT IS HUMBLY REQUESTED THAT THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE CONDONED. THAT GREAT HARM AND PREJUDICE WILL BE CAU SED TO THE APPLICANT IF THE DELAY IS NOT CONDONED. 3. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SHRI. NISHANT SAMAIYA REITERATED THE SUBMISSION AS ABOVE. HE FURTHER SUBM ITTED THAT HONBLE KARNATKA HIGH COURT DECISION REFERRED ABOVE IS APPL ICABLE INASMUCH AS IT IS RENDERED AFTER THE INTRODUCTION OF SUBSTITUTED 3 RD PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (2A) TO SECTION 254. 4. PER CONTRA LD. SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI PORUS KAKA SUBMITTED THAT ITAT HAS POWERS TO GRANTED STAY BEYO ND 365 DAYS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED BY HONOURABLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS TATA TELESERVICES (MAHA RASHTRA) LTD. (81. 4 M.A. NO.84/MUM/2019 STAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED TAXMANN.COM 348). HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS DECISION W AS RENDERED AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE INTRODUCTION OF 3 RD PROVISO TO 254(2A). HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS ALSO FULLY COVERED ALS O BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. PEPSI FOODS PVT.LTD, 79 TAXMANN.COM 251 (SC) 5. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SUPREME COURT DECISION REFERRED BY THE REVENUE IS RENDERED ON A TOTALLY DIFFERENT CONTEXT AND HENCE THE SAME IS NOT APPLICABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 6. UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION WE MAY GAINFULLY REFE R TO THE DECISION OF HONOURABLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TATA TELE SERVICES(SUPRA). IN THIS CASE LAW HONBLE JURISDICT IONAL HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT TRIBUNAL HAS POWER UNDER THE ACT TO EXTEND THE STAY OF DEMAND IN AN APPEAL PENDING BEFORE IT BEYOND THE PERIOD OF 365 D AYS EVEN AFTER THE INTRODUCTION OF 3 RD PROVISO TO SECTION 254(2A). 7. IN THIS REGARD WE MAY GAINFULLY REFER TO PARAGRA PH 6 OF THE ABOVE ORDER. THE SAME READS AS UNDER: 6.IN ANY CASE THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THIS COU RT IN NARANGOVERSEAS(P) LTD. (SUPRA) WOULD APPLY EVEN TO THE SUBSTITUTED THIRD PROVISO TO SECTION 254(2A) OF THE ACT. THE BASIS OF THE DECISION INNARANG OVERSEAS (P) LTD. (SUPRA) WAS ON THE BASIS OF T HE FOLLOWING: WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE OBJECT OF THE AMENDMENT A ND BEFORE ANSWERING THE ISSUE, LET US CONSIDER THE POSITION OF LAW IN THE M ATTER OF GRANT OF INTERIM RELIEF BEFORE THE AMENDMENT. THE POWER TO GRANT INTERIM R ELIEFHAS BEEN RECOGNISED BY THE SUPR EME COURT [SEE ITO VS.M.K.MOHAMMED KUNHI (1969) 71 ITR 815 (SC)]. WEMAY GAINFUL LY REPRODUCE THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH: 5 M.A. NO.84/MUM/2019 STAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED IT IS DIFFICULT TO CONCEIVE THAT THE LEGISLATUR E SHOULD HAVE LEFT THE ENTIRE MATTER TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES TO MAKE S UCH ORDERS AS THEY CHOOSE TO PASS IN EXERCISE OF UN FETTERED DISCRETION. THE ASSESSEE, AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUTB EFORE, HAS NO RIGHT TO EVEN MOV E AN APPLICATION WHEN AN APPEAL IS PENDING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL UNDER S.220(6) AND IT IS ONLY AT THE EARLIER STAGEO F APPEAL BEFORE THE AAC THAT THE STATUTE PROVIDEFOR SUCH A MATTER BEING DEALT WITH B Y THE ITO. IT IS A FIRMLY ESTABLISHED RULE THAT AN EXPRESS GRANT OFS TATUTORY POWER CARRIES WITH IT BY NECESSARY IMPLICATION THE AUTHORITY TO USE ALL REASONABLE MEANS TO MAKE SUCH GRANT EFFECTIVE (SUTHERLAND'SSTA TUTORY CONSTRUCTION, THIRD ED ITION, ARTS.5401AND 5402). THE POWERS WHICH HAVE B EEN CONFERREDBY S.254 ON THE TRIBUNAL WITH WIDEST POSSIBLE AMPLITUDE MUST CARRY WITH THEM BY NECES SARY IMPLICATION ALL POWERS AND DUTIES INCIDENTAL ANDNEC ESSARY TO MAKE THE EXERCI SE OF THOSE POWERS FULLY EFFECTIVE. THE SUPREME COURT WHILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL NOT EDTHAT THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT A COURT, B UT IT EXERCISES JUDICIAL POWERS AND THAT THE TRIBUNAL'S POWERS TO DEAL WITH APPEALS ARE OF THE WIDEST AMPLITUDE AND HAVE IN SOM ECASES BEEN HELD SIMILAR TO AND IDENT ICAL WITH THE POWERSOF AN APPELLATE COURT UNDER THE CPC. THE SUPREME COURTQUOTED WITH APPROVAL WHAT JESSEL M.R. SAID ABOUT THEPOWERS OF THE COURT OF APPEAL TO GRANT STAY IN POLINI VS.GRAY (1879) 12 CH.D. 438 AND WE QUOTE : IT APPEARS TO ME ON PRINCIPLE THAT THE COURT OUGHT TO POSSESS THAT JURISDICTION, BE CAUSE THE PRINCIPLE WHICH UNDERLIES ALL ORDERS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF PROPERTY PENDING LITIGATION IS THIS, THAT THE SUCCESSFUL PARTY IN THE LITIGATION, THAT IS THE ULTIMATELY SUCCESSFUL PARTY, IS TO REAP THE FRUITS OFTHAT LITIGATION, AND NOT OBTAIN M ERELY A BARREN SUCCESS. THAT PRINCIPLE, AS IT APPEARS TO ME, APPLIES AS MUCH TO THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE BEFORE THE FIRST TRIAL, AND TO THE COURT OF APPEAL BEFORE THE SECOND TRIAL, AS TO THE COURT OF LAST INSTANCE BEFORE THE HEARING OF T HE FINAL APPEAL. IT WOULD, THEREFORE, BE CLEAR THAT THE POWER TO GRA NT STAYOR INTERIM RELIEF HAS TO BE READ AS COEXTENSIVE WITH THEPOWER TO GRANT FINAL R ELIEF. THE OBJECT BEING THAT IN T HEABSENCE OF THE POWER TO GRANT INTERIM RELIEF THE FINALRELIEF ITSELF MAY BE DEFEATE' THIS COURT THEREAFTER FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURTIN CCE VS. KUMAR COTTON MILLS(P) LTD., (2005(180) ELT 434 (SC)) ANDH ELD THAT NOTWITHSTANDING THE PRE-SUBSTITUTED THIRD PROVISO TO SECTION 254(2A) OF THE ACT THE TRIBUNAL CONTINUES TO HAVE P OWERS TO GRANT INTERIM RELIEF. 7. IN THE ABOVE VIEW THEREFORE, THE RATIO OF THE DECISION IN NARANG OVERSEAS (P) LTD. (SUPRA) WOULD APPLY EVEN IN CASE OF SUBSTITUTED THIRD PROVISO TO SECTION 254(2A) OF THE ACT. 6 M.A. NO.84/MUM/2019 STAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED 8.IT MAY BE POINTED OUT THAT THE ONLY SUBSTANTIAL D IFFERENCE INTHE PRESUBSTITUTED THIRD PROV ISO AND SUBSTITUTED THIRD PROVISO TO SECTION254(2A) OF THE ACT IS THE ADDITION OF THE WORDS EVEN IF DELAY IN DISPOSINGOF THE APPEAL IS NOT ATT RIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE THESE ADDITIO NAL WORDSADDED IN THE SUBSTITUTED THIRD PROVISO TO SECTION 254(2A) OF THE ACT HASBEEN STR UCK DOWN BY THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN PEPSI FOODS (P ) LTD. VS. ASSTT. CIT[2015]376 ITR 87/57 TAXMANN.COM 337. 9.IN THE ABOVE VIEW, WE SEE NO REASON TO ENTERTAIN THE PETITIONS.ACCORDINGLY, PETITIONS DIS MISSED. NO ORDER AS TO COSTS 8. FURTHERMORE WE NOTE THAT HONBLE APEX COURT IN TH E CASE OF PEPSI FOOD PVT.LTD (SUPRA) HAS DISMISSED THE SPECIAL LEA VE PETITION AGAINST HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT DECISION REFERRED ABOVE 9. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DECISION HONOURABLE JUR ISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND THE ABOVE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COU RT WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT ITAT HAS POWER TO GRANT EXT ENSION OF THE STAY BEYOND 365 DAYS IN DESERVING CASE IT. THE REVENUES CASE IS NOT AT ALL OXYGENATED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIG H COURT REFERRED BY THEM AS ABOVE IN VIEW OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIG H COURT AS ABOVE. 10. AS REGARDS THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT I N THE CASE OF ASIAN RESURFACING OF ROAD AGENCY PVT.LTD (SUPRA), WE AGRE E WITH THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THE SAID DECISION WAS REFERRED ON A TOTALLY DIFFERENT CONTEXT AND CAN NOT BE TAKEN AS A BASIS FOR FILING AN APPLI CATION UNDER SECTION 254 (2) BEFORE THE ITAT AS IN THE PRESENT CASE. IT IS TRITE THAT CASE LAW HAS TO BE APPLIED CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE ON WHI CH IT WAS RENDERED. THE 7 M.A. NO.84/MUM/2019 STAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ABOVE SAID DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT WAS RENDE RED IN THE CONTEXT OF STAY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988. THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAS RENDERED THE ABOVE DECISION IN THE CONTEXT OF SUPERIOR CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS NAMELY TH E HIGH COURTS POWERS IN TERMS OF ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION. 11. WE MAY GAINFULLY REFER TO THE CONCLUDING PORTIO N WHICH ACCORDING TO REVENUE MAY HAS RELEVANCE HERE: 36. THUS, WE DECLARE THE LAW TO BE THAT ORDER FRAMI NG CHARGE IS NOT PURELY AN INTERLOCUTORY ORDER NOR A FINAL ORDER. JURISDICTION OF THE HIGH C OURT IS NOT BARRED IRRESPECTIVE OF THE LABEL OF A PETITION, BE IT UNDER SECTIONS 397 OR 48 2 CR. P.C. OR ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION. HOWEVER, THE SAID JURISDICTION IS TO BE EXERCISED CONSISTENT WITH THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY TO ENSURE EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSAL O F A TRIAL WITHOUT THE SAME BEING IN ANY MANNER HAMPERED. THUS CONSIDERED, THE CHALLENGE TO AN ORDER OF CHARGE SHOULD BE ENTERTAINED IN A RAREST OF RARE CASE ONLY TO CORREC T A PATENT ERROR OF JURISDICTION AND NOT TO RE-APPRECIATE THE MATTER. EVEN WHERE SUCH CHALLENGE IS ENTERTAINED AND STAY IS GRANTED, THE MATTER MUST BE DECIDED ON DAY-TO-DAY BASIS SO T HAT STAY DOES NOT OPERATE FOR AN UNDULY LONG PERIOD. THOUGH NO MANDATORY TIME LIMIT MAY BE FIXED, THE DECISION MAY NOT EXCEED TWO-THREE MONTHS NORMALLY. IF IT REMAINS PENDING LO NGER, DURATION OF STAY SHOULD NOT EXCEED SIX MONTHS, UNLESS EXTENSION IS GRANTED BY A SPECIF IC SPEAKING ORDER, AS ALREADY INDICATED. MANDATE OF SPEEDY JUSTICE APPLIES TO THE PC ACT CAS ES AS WELL AS OTHER CASES WHERE AT TRIAL STAGE PROCEEDINGS ARE STAYED BY THE HIGHER COURT I. E. THE HIGH COURT OR A COURT BELOW THE HIGH COURT, AS THE CASE MAY BE. IN ALL PENDING MATT ERS BEFORE THE HIGH COURTS OR OTHER COURTS RELATING TO PC ACT OR ALL OTHER CIVIL OR CRI MINAL CASES, WHERE STAY OF PROCEEDINGS IN A PENDING TRIAL IS OPERATING, STAY WILL AUTOMATICAL LY LAPSE AFTER SIX MONTHS FROM TODAY UNLESS EXTENDED BY A SPEAKING ORDER ON ABOVE PARAME TERS. SAME COURSE MAY ALSO BE ADOPTED BY CIVIL AND CRIMINAL APPELLATE/REVISIONAL COURTS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE HIGH COURTS. THE TRIAL COURTS MAY, ON EXPIRY OF ABOVE PE RIOD, RESUME THE PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT WAITING FOR ANY OTHER INTIMATION UNLESS EXPRESS ORD ER EXTENDING STAY IS PRODUCED. 37. THE HIGH COURTS MAY ALSO ISSUE INSTRUCTIONS TO THIS EFFECT AND MONITOR THE SAME SO THAT CIVIL OR CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS DO NOT REMAIN PENDING FOR UNDULY PERIOD AT THE TRIAL STAGE 12. IN OUR CONSIDER OPINION THE INCOME TAX PROCEEDI NGS AT THE ITAT U/S 254 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE EQUATED WITH A CIVIL OR CR IMINAL PROCEEDING 8 M.A. NO.84/MUM/2019 STAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED PENDING AT THE TRIAL STAGE. IN ANY CASE, THE ABOVE CASE PROVIDES THAT STAY SHOULD BE EXTENDED ONLY BY A SPECIFIC SPEAKING ORD ER. 13. NOW LET US EXAMINING THE STAY ORDER GRANTED BY THE ITAT VIDE THE LATEST STAY ORDER. THIS IS AS UNDER: 1. THE PRESENT STAY APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE FOR EXTENSION OF STAY GRANTED VIDES ORDER DATED 23/03//2018 WHICH HAS EXPIRED ON 19/09/ 2018. 2. THE LD. SR. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THA T WHEN THE STAY WAS EXTENDED ON 23/03/2018 FOR 180 DAYS OR TILL THE PRONOUNCEMENT O F ORDER WHICHEVER WAS EARLIER, THE MAIN APPEAL WAS ALREADY HEARD ON 19/01/2018, AND WA S KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER. HOWEVER, THE APPEAL WAS RELEASED ON 04/05/2018 FOR HEARING AFRESH AND NOW FIXED FOR HEARING ON 09/10/2018. THERE IS NO DELAY ATTRIBUTED ON PART OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. SR. COUNSEL PRAYED FOR EXTENSION OF STAY FOR A PERIOD O F SIX MONTHS OR TILL THE DISPOSAL OF APPEAL WHICHEVER IS EARLIER. 3. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FACTUAL CONTENTION SUBMITTED BY LD. SR. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE FACTUAL BACKGROU ND OF THE CASE FROM THE DATE OF EXTENSION OF STAY ON 23RD MARCH, 2018. THE LD. DR F OR THE REVENUE HAS NO OBJECTION IF S.A. NO.418/MUM/2018- STAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED 2 THE S TAY IS FURTHER EXTENDED FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTH OR TILL THE DISPOSAL OF APPEAL WHICHEV ER IS EARLIER. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE ORDER SHEET OF MAIN APPEAL. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THERE IS N O DELIBERATE DELAY ATTRIBUTABLE ON THE PART OF ASSESSEE IN DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL. CONSIDE RING THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO EXTEND THE STAY OF OUTSTANDING DEMAND FOR FURTHER SIX MONTH OR TILL THE DISPOSAL OF APPEAL, WHICHEVER IS EARLIE R. ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS IF ANY, IMPOSED BY THE BENCH ON EARLIER OCCASIONS, WILL REM AIN SAME. 5. AS A RESULT, THE STAY APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISPOSED OFF ACCORDINGLY. 14. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS NOTED THAT THE STAY IN THE ABOVE CASE WAS GRANTED/EXTENDED ON A SPECIFIC FINDING THAT HEARING OF THE APPEAL COULD NOT TAKE PLACE AND THE DELAY WAS NOT ATTRIBUTABLE T O THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.DR HAD ALSO NOT DISPUTED THE ABOVE. UPON THESE F INDINGS AND THE ADMISSIONS BY THE LD. DR THE STAY WAS GRANTED/EXTEN DED. IT IS NOT THE CASE 9 M.A. NO.84/MUM/2019 STAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED BEFORE US THAT THE RECORDING OF FACTS BY THE ITAT I N ABOVE SAID STAY ORDER IS WRONG. 15. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE FIND THAT NO MISTAKE LIABLE FOR RECTIFICATION U/S 254(2) OF THE I.T. ACT IS FOUND IN THE STAY ORD ER OF THE ITAT AS UNDER. 16. FURTHERMORE WE NOTE THAT THE AFORESAID INCOME TA X APPEAL HAS BEEN HEARD ON 10/01/2019 BY THE ITAT AND THE ORDER IS AW AITED. THE LD. DR IN THIS REGARD SHOWED HIS IGNORANCE ABOUT THE PRESENT STATUS OF THE INCOME- TAX APPEAL. 17. AS THE INCOME TAX APPEAL HAS ALREADY BEEN HEARD BY THE ITAT AND THE ORDER IS AWAITED, IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES ALSO T HE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE STAY ORDER IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. 18. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AFORESAI D DISCUSSION OF PRECEDENTS, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 TH MARCH 2019 SD/- SD/- (PAWAN SINGH) (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 14 .03.2019 THIRUMALESH , SR. PS 10 M.A. NO.84/MUM/2019 STAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. CIT - CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER, (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI