Shenzhen Shandong Nuclear Power Construction Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT, (IT)-II, Ahmedabad
[Citation -2016-LL-0930-196]

Citation 2016-LL-0930-196
Appellant Name Shenzhen Shandong Nuclear Power Construction Co. Ltd.
Respondent Name Dy. CIT, (IT)-II, Ahmedabad
Court ITAT-Mumbai
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 30/09/2016
Assessment Year 2009-10
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags outstanding demand
Bot Summary: Vide these stay applications, the assessee is seeking extension of stay which was granted earlier in five occasions i.e., latest on 01.4.2016 vide the order of the Tribunal in SA Nos.341 342/Mum/2016. During the proceedings before us, Ld Counsel for the assessee demonstrated that this is the sixth extension of stay of demand and there is no change in the facts. In the back ground of the above facts, it is the prayer of the Ld Counsel for the assessee that the stay of demand for both the AYs under consideration may further be extended for a period of 180 days or disposal of the appeals, whichever is earlier. On the other hand, Ld DR has objected the assessee s prayer for further extension of the stay and insisted that the assessee may be asked to pay some amount out of the outstanding demand in the interest of Revenue. Considering the same, we are of the opinion that this is a fit case to extend the stay of demand for both the AYs under consideration for a further period of 180 days from the date of this order or disposal of appeals whichever is earlier. Accordingly, both the Stay Applications filed by the assessee are allowed. In the result, Stay Applications filed by the assessee are allowed.


L IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL L BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM S.A.NO. 341 & 342 /M/2016 (Arising from I.T.A. Nos.1050/Ahd/2014 and 2053/Mum/2014) (AYs: 2009-2010 & 2010-2011) Shenzhen Shandong Nuclear Dy. CIT, (IT)-II, Power Construction Co. Ltd. C/o Ahmedabad 380014. Vs. Hinesh R. Doshi & Co. 2 n d Floor, Shriram Bhuvan, 772, Tilak Road, Opp Best O ffice, Dadar T.T. Mumbai Maharashtra-400014. PAN : AAMCS 1163 P ( Appellant) ( Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Girish Dave Respondent by : Ms. Mahua Sarkar Date of Hearing : 30.09.2016 /Date of Pronouncement : 30.09.2016 O R D E R PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM : These Stay Applications (SAs) are filed by assessee on 16.9.2016 and they arose from I.T.A. Nos.1050/Ahd/2014 and 2053/Mum/2014 for assessment year 2009-2010 and 2010-2011. 2. Vide these stay applications, assessee is seeking extension of stay which was granted earlier in five occasions i.e., latest on 01.4.2016 vide order of Tribunal in SA Nos.341 & 342/Mum/2016. 3. During proceedings before us, Ld Counsel for assessee demonstrated that this is sixth extension of stay of demand and there is no change in facts. In this regard, he relied on facts and conclusions narrated by Tribunal 2 in earlier Stay Application proceedings in general and para 3 of Tribunal s order dated 19.2.2016 (supra) in particular. In back ground of above facts, it is prayer of Ld Counsel for assessee that stay of demand for both AYs under consideration may further be extended for period of 180 days or disposal of appeals, whichever is earlier. 4. On other hand, Ld DR has objected assessee s prayer for further extension of stay and insisted that assessee may be asked to pay some amount out of outstanding demand in interest of Revenue. 5. We have heard both parties and perused earlier orders of Tribunal dated 19.2.2016 (supra) and find that there is no change in facts. Considering submissions of both parties and conclusions narrated in earlier orders of Tribunal, we are of opinion that it is fit case for further extension. As such, delay in disposal of cases is not attributable to assessee. In fact, captioned appeals were fixed for hearing on 07.11.2016. Considering same, we are of opinion that this is fit case to extend stay of demand for both AYs under consideration for further period of 180 days from date of this order or disposal of appeals whichever is earlier. Accordingly, both Stay Applications filed by assessee are allowed. 6. In result, Stay Applications filed by assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 30th September, 2016 immediately after completion of hearing. Sd/- Sd/- (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; 30.09.2016 Ps. Ashwini 3 Copy of Order forwarded to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent. 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. //True Copy// BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Shenzhen Shandong Nuclear Power Construction Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT, (IT)-II, Ahmedabad
Report Error