UNITED HEALTH GROUPINFORMATION SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE27(1) NEW DELHI & ANR.

W.P.(C)/3478/2015

AI Insights

The case involves United Health Group Information Services Private Limited, the petitioner, who approached the High Court of Delhi seeking a stay on the recovery of a balance amount related to an income tax demand for the assessment year 2009-10. This demand was initially stayed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under certain conditions, which the petitioner fulfilled. However, due to a legal provision limiting the extension of such stays to 365 days, the petitioner could not seek further extension from the Tribunal. The appeal was scheduled for a hearing but had not been taken up due to reasons not attributable to the petitioner. The High Court, considering the circumstances and the precedents set in similar cases, decided to extend the stay until the Tribunal could hear and decide on the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 752053 (HC-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 10-04-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: CIT v. Maruti Suzuki (India) Limited: [WP(C) 5086/2013]
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: P ROYCHAUDHURI; ROHIT MADAN
• Assessee Lawyers: DEEPAK CHOPRA; HARPREET AJMANI; ANANYA KAPOOR
• Keywords: Dispute Resolution Panel; Income Tax; Income tax appellate tribunal; Interim Stay
• Section: ITA No.825/Del/2014

Judgement Text

" WPC 3478/2015 Page 1 of 3 THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 10.04.2015 + W.P.(C) 3478/2015 UNITED HEALTH GROUPINFORMATION SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ... Petitioner versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 27(1) NEW DELHI & ANR. ... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Deepak Chopra with Mr Harpreet Ajmani and Ms Ananya Kapoor, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr P. Roychaudhuri with Mr Rohit Madan, Adv. CORAM:- HON’BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. Since the facts are not in dispute, the matter is taken up for hearing at the first instance itself. 2. The petitioner has filed an appeal being ITA No.825/Del/2014 before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal being aggrieved by the order passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel on 31.10.2013. The Tribunal, at the initial stage, that is, on 31.03.2014, had granted stay of the demand which had WPC 3478/2015 Page 2 of 3 been raised subsequent to the said order of the Dispute Resolution Panel on condition of the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs 3 crore. The petitioner had already deposited the said sum and the recovery of the balance demand was stayed. 3. A subsequent order dated 26.09.2014 was passed by the Tribunal extending the interim stay which it had earlier granted on 31.03.2014. By virtue of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in CIT v. Maruti Suzuki (India) Limited: [WP(C) 5086/2013] decided on 21.02.2014, it is made clear that the Tribunal has no authority to extend the period of stay beyond a period of 365 days from the initial date of grant of stay. As 365 days have elapsed on 30.03.2015, the petitioner cannot approach the Tribunal for any further extension of stay. It is also to be noted that, in the meanwhile, the petitioner’s said appeal before the Tribunal was listed for hearing but could not be taken up for reasons not attributable to the petitioner. Now, the appeal is listed for hearing on 16.07.2015. 4. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this writ petition seeking grant of stay of recovery of the balance amount in respect of the assessment year 2009-10 till the disposal WPC 3478/2015 Page 3 of 3 of the appeal by the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before us several orders passed by this court, whereby this Court has extended the stay initially granted by the Tribunal till the disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In fact, it is settled law that there is no bar for grant of such a relief if the Court is of the opinion that the circumstances and the ends of justice so warrant. This has also been stated clearly in Maruti Suzuki (supra). 5. We feel that since the petitioner had already been granted conditional stay by the Tribunal in respect of the said appeal and that the Tribunal is in the midst of hearing the appeal, it would be in the interest of justice that the stay order granted by the Tribunal is continued till the disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly. The writ petition stands disposed of. Dasti under the signature of the Court Master. BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J APRIL 10, 2015/SU "