AFTER DELHI HC GUJARAT HC ALSO HELD THAT ITAT CAN EXTEND STAY BEYOND 365 DAYS IF DELAY ISN’T DUE TO ASSESSE

After Delhi HC Gujarat HC also held that ITAT can extend stay beyond 365 days if delay isn’t due to assesse

ITAT may extend stay of demand beyond 365 days if delay in disposing appeal not attributable to assessee

By section 254(2A) of the Act, it cannot be inferred a legislative intent to curtail/withdraw powers of the Appellate Tribunal to extend stay of demand beyond the period of 365 days.

Grant of extension of stay of demand by ITAT beyond the period of total 365 days from the date of grant of initial stay would always be subject to the subjective satisfaction by ITAT and on an application made by the assessee appellant to extend stay and on being satisfied that the delay in disposing of the appeal within a period of 365 days from the date of grant of initial stay is not attributable to the appellant / assessee.

On expiry of every 180 days, the appellant/assessee is required to make an application to extend stay granted earlier and satisfy ITAT that the delay in not disposing of the appeal is not attributable to him/it and ITAT is required to review the matter after every 180 days.

However, at the same time, all efforts should be made by ITAT to dispose of such appeals in which stay has been granted as far as possible within total period of 365 days from the date of grant of initial stay and the ITAT shall grant priority to such appeals over appeals in which no stay is granted. For that even the ITAT and/or registrar of the ITAT is required to maintain separate register of the appeals in which stay has been granted fully and/or partially and the appeals in which no stay has been granted.

[2015-HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT -Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax – TDS Circle v. Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd.

No sec. 68 additions without making detailed scrutiny of creditors

Where books of account was rejected and detailed scrutiny of sundry creditors was not done and further there was no other source of income earned by assessee, no separate addition regarding sundry creditors was warranted

[2015] -Sahani Transport Corpn. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Cash credit – Sundry creditors

Assessing Officer in absence of detail/explanation of creditors shown, treated same as unexplained credit.

It was observed that gross receipts of assessee were at Rs 1.87 crores, 5 per cent of which would come to Rs 9.36 lakhs, which was more than sundry creditors shown at Rs 8.71 crores. Further, since books of account were rejected, detailed scrutiny of sundry creditors was not done. There was no other source of income earned by assesse. It was held that no separate addition regarding sundry creditors was warranted.

**********************************************************

If this article has helped you in any way, i would appreciate if you could share/like it or leave a comment. Thank you for visiting my blog.

Legal Disclaimer:
The information / articles & any relies to the comments on this blog are provided purely for informational and educational purposes only & are purely based on my understanding / knowledge. They do noy constitute legal advice or legal opinions. The information / articles and any replies to the comments are intended but not promised or guaranteed to be current, complete, or up-to-date and should in no way be taken as a legal advice or an indication of future results. Therefore, i can not take any responsibility for the results or consequences of any attempt to use or adopt any of the information presented on this blog. You are advised not to act or rely on any information / articles contained without first seeking the advice of a practicing professional.