IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SP NO.74/BANG/2019 [IN ITA NO.2459/BANG/2017] ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013 - 14 CITRIX R & D INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, PRESTIGE DYNASTY, GROUND FLOOR, 33/2, ULSOOR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 042. PAN: AABCN 3639C VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE. APPLICANT RESPONDENT APPLICANT BY : SRI. P.K. PRASAD, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SRI.V IKAS SURYAVAMSHI, ADDL.CIT DATE OF HEARING : 15.03.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15.03.2019 O R D E R PER N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE-PRESIDENT THIS IS AN APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE PR AYING FOR AN ORDER OF STAY OF RECOVERY OF OUTSTANDING DEMAND OF RS.9,02,51,785 FO R A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS OR TILL THE DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER. 2. IT HAS BEEN STATED IN THE APPLICATION THAT THIS TRIBUNAL BY AN ORDER DATED 20.4.2018 IN S.P.NO.56/BANG/2018 IN ITA NO.2549/BAN G/2017 FOR AY 2013-14, GRANTED CONDITIONAL STAY OF RECOVERY OF OUTSTANDING DEMAND IN RESPECT OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT FOR AY 2013-14 FOR A PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS FROM 20.4.2018 OR TILL DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL WHICHEVER IS EARLIER. THE ASSESSEE H AD COMPLIED WITH THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED FOR GRANT OF STAY BY PAYING A SUM OF RS.4,5 1,25,893/- AS DIRECTED IN THE ORDER GRANTING STAY. THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARI NG AND HEARD ON 12.9.2018. UNFORTUNATELY THE BENCH WHICH HEARD THE APPEAL RELE ASED THE APPEAL ON 19.11.2018 FOR THE REASON THAT ONE OF THE MEMBERS WHICH HEARD THE APPEAL WAS RETIRING ON S.P.NO.74/BANG/2019 IN ITA NO.2549/BANG/2017 CITRIX R & D INDIA PVT.LTD. VS. DCIT 2 30.11.2018. THEREAFTER THE APPEAL WAS POSTED FOR H EARING ON 29.1.2019 ON WHICH DATE THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED TO 23.5.2019. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPLIED WITH THE CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF STAY AND THE NON D ISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL WITHIN THE PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS FOR WHICH STAY WAS GRANTED IS NO T ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE ORDER OF STAY SHOULD BE GRANTED AS PR AYED FOR. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE FACTS NARRATED ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE DELAY IN NON-DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL IS NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LAW IS BY NOW WELL SETTLED THAT IF THE DELAY IN NON-DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL IS NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO T HE ASSESSEE, THEN THE TRIBUNAL HAS POWER TO EXTEND THE PERIOD OF STAY EVEN BEYOND THE TIME LIMIT LAID DOWN IN THIRD PROVISO TO SECTION 254(2A) OF THE ACT. REFERENCE M AY BE MADE TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PEPSI FOODS (P) LTD. V. ACIT, 376 ITR 87 (DEL) WHICH WAS FOLLOWED BY THE ITAT BANGALORE BENCH IN T HE CASE OF M/S. SAP LABS (I) PVT. LTD. V. ACIT, 67 TAXMANN.COM 78. WE THEREFORE GRANT AN ORDER OF STAY OF RECOVERY OF OUTSTANDING DEMAND FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER, OR TILL THE DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL, WHICHEVE R IS EARLIER. THE APPEAL IS ALREADY FIXED FOR HEARING ON 23.5.2019. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE STAY PETITION IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 15 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019. SD/- SD/- ( G. MANJUNATHA ) ( N.V. VASUDEVAN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE - PRESIDENT BANGALORE, DATED, THE 15 TH MARCH, 2019. / D ESAI S MURTHY / S.P.NO.74/BANG/2019 IN ITA NO.2549/BANG/2017 CITRIX R & D INDIA PVT.LTD. VS. DCIT 3 COPY TO: 1. THE APPLICAN T 2 . THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR/ SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, BANGALORE.