Canon India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, Circle-5(2), New Delhi
[Citation -2016-LL-0916-107]

Citation 2016-LL-0916-107
Appellant Name Canon India Pvt. Ltd.
Respondent Name DCIT, Circle-5(2), New Delhi
Court ITAT-Delhi
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 16/09/2016
Assessment Year 2010-11
Judgment View Judgment
Bot Summary: PAN: AAACC4175D Assessee by: Shri Vishal Kalra Shri Ankit Sahni, Advocates Revenue by: Shri Umesh Chander Dubey, CIT, DR Date of Hearing 16.09.2016 Date of Pronouncement 16.09.2016 ORDER PER R. S. SYAL, AM: By means of the present stay applications, the assessee seek further extension of the stays originally granted by the Tribunal in the above 2 SA Nos. For the AY 2010-11, the stay was originally granted by the Tribunal on 27.03.2015 and the same was extended thereafter on 18.09.2015 and 22.3.2016. For the AY 2011-12, the stay was originally granted by the Tribunal on 15.03.2016. AR submitted that the conditions stipulated, while granting original stay for both the years were duly complied with and the delay in disposing of the appeals has not occurred due to the assessee. The effect of this judgment is that if the appeal could not be disposed of by the Tribunal for no fault of the assessee, then the power vests with the Tribunal to extend the stay beyond the aggregate period of 365 days. On merits, it is indisputably found that the terms of stay originally granted have been duly complied with for both the years. Considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the instant case, we are inclined to grant extension of stay in both the cases for a further period of six months from today or till the disposal of the appeals, whichever is earlier.


IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: FRIDAY NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER S.A. Nos.436 & 437/Del/2016 (In I.T.A Nos.1405 /Del/2015 &832/Del/2016) Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Canon India Pvt. Ltd., Vs DCIT, 7th & 8th Floor, Tower-B, Building Circle-5(2), No.5, DLF Cyber Terraces, New Delhi. DLF Phase-III, Gurgaon. PAN: AAACC4175D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Vishal Kalra & Shri Ankit Sahni, Advocates Revenue by: Shri Umesh Chander Dubey, CIT, DR Date of Hearing 16.09.2016 Date of Pronouncement 16.09.2016 ORDER PER R. S. SYAL, AM: By means of present stay applications, assessee seek further extension of stays originally granted by Tribunal in above 2 SA Nos. 436 & 437/Del/2016 cases. For AY 2010-11, stay was originally granted by Tribunal on 27.03.2015 and same was extended thereafter on 18.09.2015 and 22.3.2016. For AY 2011-12, stay was originally granted by Tribunal on 15.03.2016. 2. ld. AR submitted that conditions stipulated, while granting original stay for both years were duly complied with and delay in disposing of appeals has not occurred due to assessee. It was, therefore, prayed that stay hitherto granted/extended may be further extended. ld. DR opposed extension of stays. 3. We have heard parties and perused relevant material on record. Hon ble Delhi High Court in Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (2015) 376 ITR 87 (Del) has held that third proviso to section 254(2A) is constitutionally invalid. effect of this judgment is that if appeal could not be disposed of by Tribunal for no fault of assessee, then power vests with Tribunal to extend stay beyond aggregate period of 365 days. 3 SA Nos. 436 & 437/Del/2016 4. On merits, it is indisputably found that terms of stay originally granted have been duly complied with for both years. appeals could not be heard for one reason or other, but, for no fault of assessee. Considering entirety of facts and circumstances of instant case, we are inclined to grant extension of stay in both cases for further period of six months from today or till disposal of appeals, whichever is earlier. 5. In result, stay applications are allowed. Order pronounced in open Court on 16.09.2016. Sd/- Sd/- (KULDIP SINGH) (R. S. SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 16.09.2016 dk Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Canon India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, Circle-5(2), New Delhi
Report Error