ITEM NO.38 COURT NO.14 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 27963-27966/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 06/05/2015 in WP No. 565/2015 with IA No. 1197/2015 with IA No. 1835/2015 with IA No. 2420/2015 passed by High Court Of Jharkhand At Ranchi) M/S SIDHI VINAYAK METCOM LIMITED Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for exemption from filing O.T. and interim relief) Date : 05/10/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Adv. Ms. Ninni Susan, Adv. Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel Court made following O R D E R Application for exemption from filing official translation is allowed. assessment in respect of Assessment Years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 was reopened by Income Tax Department by issuing notice under Section 148 of Income Tax Act. Assessments for these years were carried out Signature Not Verified afresh by Assessing Officer imposing additional tax Digitally signed by ASHWANI KUMAR Date: 2015.10.06 17:43:52 IST Reason: demand of Rs. 64 lakhs. petitioner has filed appeal SLP (C)Nos. 27963-27966/2015 1 against said order which is pending before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as 'CIT (Appeals)'). petitioner also moved application for stay of demand. On this application, CIT(Appeals) passed orders granting stay of interest and in respect of tax amount, petitioner was permitted to deposit same in 16 installments. However, petitioner committed default in making payment of very first installment because of which bank account of petitioner was attached. order was challenged by filing writ petition in High Court which has been dismissed by impugned order. It is stated at Bar that up to now petitioner has paid sum of Rs.27.7 lakhs in all. It is also pointed out by learned counsel for petitioner that main reason for reopening of assessment for aforesaid years by issuance of notice under Section 148 of Income Tax Act was certain proceedings under Central Excise Act. He has filed additional documents wherein copy of decision dated 16.09.2015 passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'CESTAT') is annexed revealing that in appeal against Order-in-Original of Excise Department, CESTAT has set aside said order and remitted case back to Adjudicating Authority for fresh adjudication. In view of aforesaid subsequent event, it would SLP (C)Nos. 27963-27966/2015 2 be appropriate if petitioner approaches CIT(Appeals) once again with application for stay bringing aforesaid events to notice of CIT (Appeals). We are confident that CIT(Appeals) shall consider application on its own merits and pass orders thereon within period of four weeks from date of filing application. special leave petitions are disposed of. (Nidhi Ahuja) (Renu Diwan) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER SLP (C)Nos. 27963-27966/2015 3 M/S SIDHI VINAYAK METCOM LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS