HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 25.03.2015 + W.P.(C) 3070/2015 NARTEL NETWORKS INDIA INTERNATIONAL INC. ... Petitioner versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2 (1), NEW DELHI ... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For Petitioner : Mr Amit Shrivastava with Ms Neha Singh, Advocates. For Respondent : Mr N.P. Sahni with Mr Nitin Gulati, Advocates. 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 Mr Sahni on behalf of respondent. Since facts are not in dispute, matter is taken up for hearing at first instance itself. 2. petitioner has filed appeal being ITA No.1087/Del/2014 before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal being aggrieved by order passed by respondent No.1 on 07.01.2014. At initial stage, Tribunal granted unconditional stay of demand by virtue of its order WPC 3070/2015 Page 1 of 3 dated 28.03.2014 for three months. It was extended from time to time and last extension was granted on 14.01.2015 for further period of three months. 3. By virtue of decision of 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 Tribunal has no authority to extend period of stay beyond period of 365 days from initial date of grant of stay. As 365 days would elapse on 27.03.2015, petitioner cannot approach Tribunal for any further extension of stay. It is also to be noted that, in meanwhile, petitioner s said appeal before Tribunal was listed for hearing but could not be taken up for reasons not attributable to petitioner. Now, appeal is listed for hearing on 06.04.2015. 4. It is in these circumstances that petitioner has approached this Court by way of this writ petition seeking grant of stay of recovery of balance amount in respect of assessment year 2010-11 till disposal of appeal by Tribunal. learned counsel for petitioner has placed before us several orders passed by this court, whereby this Court has WPC 3070/2015 Page 2 of 3 extended stay initially granted by Tribunal till disposal of appeal by Tribunal in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution. In fact, it is settled law that there is no bar for grant of such relief if Court is of opinion that circumstances and ends of justice so warrant. This has also been stated clearly in Maruti Suzuki (supra). 5. We feel that since petitioner had already been granted conditional stay by Tribunal in respect of said appeal and that Tribunal is in midst of hearing appeal, it would be in interest of justice that stay order granted by Tribunal is continued till disposal of appeal by Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly. writ petition stands disposed of. We hope and expect Tribunal to dispose of appeal pending before it expeditiously. Dasti under signature of Court Master. BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J MARCH 25, 2015 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J st WPC 3070/2015 Page 3 of 3 Nartel Networks India International Inc. v. Deputy Director of Income-tax, Circle 2(1), New Delhi