TCA.No.963 of 2015 In High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 06.7.2020 Coram : Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.963 of 2015 Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai ...Appellant Vs M/s.Hyundai Motor India Ltd., Irungattukottai, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kanchipuram District. ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 against order dated 07.2.2014 made in S.P.No.107/Mds/2013 in ITA.No.2353/Mds/ 2012 on file of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench for assessment year 2008-09. For Appellant: Mr.T.Ravikumar, SSC & Mrs.R.Hemalatha, SSC For Respondent: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar and Mrs.R.Hemalatha learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for appellant Revenue and Mr.S.P. 1/5 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.963 of 2015 Chidambaram, learned counsel appearing for respondent. 2. This appeal, filed by Revenue under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, Act) is directed against order dated 07.2.2014 made in S.P.No.107/Mds/2013 in ITA.No.2353/Mds/2012 on file of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench (for brevity, Tribunal) for assessment year 2008-09. 3. appeal has been admitted on 24.11.2015 on following substantial questions of law : i. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in extending stay beyond period of 365 days which is contrary to Third Proviso stated in Section 254(2A) of Income Tax Act, 1961 ? ii. Is not finding of Tribunal bad by extending stay for further period of 90 days on 07.2.2014 which would in aggregate amount to in all 506 days which is contrary to statutory provisions enunciated in Section 254(2A) Third Proviso ? And iii. Whether Tribunal has power to grant stay beyond 365 days in aggregate especially when Third Proviso to Section 254(2A) clearly indicates that if appeal is not disposed of within period allowed, then order of stay shall stand vacated ? 2/5 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.963 of 2015 3/5 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.963 of 2015 4. learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for Revenue submit that main appeal itself had already been disposed of by Tribunal. 5. said submission of learned Senior Standing Counsel is recorded. 6. In view of subsequent development, which took place during pendency of this appeal, necessity to decide substantial questions of law framed for consideration would not arise, as issues have become academic. 7. Accordingly, above tax case appeal is closed leaving substantial questions of law framed for consideration to be agitated in any other proceedings, if respondent assessee or any other assessee deems it appropriate. No costs. 06.7.2020 To Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench. RS 4/5 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.963 of 2015 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J RS TCA.No.963 of 2015 06.7.2020 2/2 5/5 http://www.judis.nic.in Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai v. Hyundai Motor India Ltd