The Commissioner of Income, Chennai v. Hyundai Motor India Ltd
[Citation -2020-LL-0605-28]

Citation 2020-LL-0605-28
Appellant Name The Commissioner of Income, Chennai
Respondent Name Hyundai Motor India Ltd.
Court HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 05/06/2020
Assessment Year 2009-10
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags statutory provisions • power to grant stay • interim order • interim stay
Bot Summary: Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in extending the stay beyond the period of 365 days which is contrary to the 3rd proviso stated in Section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 2. Is not the finding of the Tribunal bad by extending the stay for a further period of 120 days on 09.10.2015 which would in aggregate amount to in all 420 days which is contrary to the statutory provisions enunciated in Section 254 3rd proviso 3. Whether the Tribunal has the power to grant stay beyond 365 days in aggregate especially when the 3rd proviso to Section 254 clearly indicates that if the appeal is not disposed off within the period allowed, then the order of stay stand vacated 2. Both the learned counsel at Bar submit that the present appeal filed by the Revenue Department is against the interim order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 09.10.2015 in SP No.407/Mds/2015 in ITA No.853/Mds/2014 for the Assessment Year 2009-10. The questions raised in the present appeal filed by the Revenue Department under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act is about the powers of the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to grant stay beyond a period of 365 days contrary to the 3rd Proviso of Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In Order in TCA No.335 of 2016 dated 05.06.2020 However, the said questions are rendered academic in view of the fact that the main appeal filed by the Assessee itself stands disposed of admittedly on 27.04.2017 and therefore the present appeal under Section 260A of the Act against the interim stay order granted by the Tribunal becomes infructuous. Leaving the questions raised by the Revenue Department open for adjudication in appropriate case, we dispose of the present appeal as having been rendered infructuous.


Order in TCA No.335 of 2016 (CIT -Vs- M/s.Hyundai Motor India Ltd) dated 05.06.2020 IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05.06.2020 CORAM HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR Tax Case (Appeal) No.335 of 2016 Commissioner of Income Chennai. ... Appellant Vs. M/s.Hyundai Motor India Ltd Plot No.H-1 SIPCOT Industrial Park Irungattukkottai, Sriperumbudur Taluk Kancheepuram District, Chennai. PAN : AAACH2364M .. Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 against common order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'D' Bench, Chennai dated 09.10.2015 in SP No.407/Mds/2015 in ITA No.853/Mds/2014. For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravi Kumar, Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.S.P.Chidambaram JUDGMENT (Judgment of Court was delivered by DR.VINEET KOTHARI,J) This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by Revenue calling in question correctness of order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'D' Bench, Chennai, by raising following substantial questions of law: Page 1 of 4 http://www.judis.nic.in Order in TCA No.335 of 2016 (CIT -Vs- M/s.Hyundai Motor India Ltd) dated 05.06.2020 1. Whether on facts and circumstances of case, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in extending stay beyond period of 365 days which is contrary to 3rd proviso stated in Section 254 (2A) of Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Is not finding of Tribunal bad by extending stay for further period of 120 days on 09.10.2015 which would in aggregate amount to in all 420 days which is contrary to statutory provisions enunciated in Section 254 (2A) 3rd proviso? 3. Whether Tribunal has power to grant stay beyond 365 days in aggregate especially when 3rd proviso to Section 254 (2A) clearly indicates that if appeal is not disposed off within period allowed, then order of stay stand vacated? " 2. Both learned counsel at Bar submit that present appeal filed by Revenue Department is against interim order passed by learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 09.10.2015 in SP No.407/Mds/2015 in ITA No.853/Mds/2014 for Assessment Year 2009-10. 3. questions raised in present appeal filed by Revenue Department under Section 260A of Income Tax Act is about powers of learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to grant stay beyond period of 365 days contrary to 3rd Proviso of Section 254(2A) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Page 2 of 4 http://www.judis.nic.in Order in TCA No.335 of 2016 (CIT -Vs- M/s.Hyundai Motor India Ltd) dated 05.06.2020 However, said questions are rendered academic in view of fact that main appeal filed by Assessee itself stands disposed of admittedly on 27.04.2017 and therefore present appeal under Section 260A of Act against interim stay order granted by Tribunal becomes infructuous. 3. Therefore, leaving questions raised by Revenue Department open for adjudication in appropriate case, we dispose of present appeal as having been rendered infructuous. No costs. (V.K.,J.) (R.S.K.,J.) 05.06.2020 KST To Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'D' Bench,Chennai. Page 3 of 4 http://www.judis.nic.in Order in TCA No.335 of 2016 (CIT -Vs- M/s.Hyundai Motor India Ltd) dated 05.06.2020 DR.VINEET KOTHARI, J. AND R.SURESH KUMAR, J. KST T.C.(A) No.335 of 2016 05.06.2020 Page 4 of 4 http://www.judis.nic.in Commissioner of Income, Chennai v. Hyundai Motor India Ltd
Report Error