No change in ITAT powers to extend stay / interim relief, even post substitution of third proviso to sec. 254 (2A)

Citation of the Case:- CIT vs. M/s Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra) Ltd. (Bombay High Court), Writ Petition Nos. 3437-3440 of 2015, AY 2009-10 to 2012-13, Date of Judgment: 16/12/2015
Brief of the Case
Bombay High Court held In the case of CIT vs. M/s Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra) Ltd. that court has consistently taken a view that the tribunal has power to extend the stay even after the substituted third proviso to section 254 (2A) was introduced. This is evident from the various judgments taken on this stand. The revenue has not filed appeal against these judgments in the context of the substituted third proviso to section 254 (2A). Nothing has been shown to us as to why the revenue has accepted the above orders and a different stand is taken in this appeal. In any case the ratio of the decision of this court in Narang Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 22 would apply even in case of substituted third proviso to section 254(2A).
Facts of the Case
The grievance of the petitioner is that in terms of the third proviso to Section 254(2A), the Tribunal hasno power under the Act to extend the stay of demand in the appeals pending before it beyond the period of 365 days.
Held by High Court
High Court held that this court has consistently taken a view that the tribunal has power to extend the stay even after the substituted third proviso to section 254 (2A) was introduced. This is evident from the various judgments taken on this stand. The revenue has not filed appeal against these judgments in the context of the substituted third proviso to section 254 (2A). Nothing has been shown to us as to why the revenue has accepted the above orders and a different stand is taken in this appeal. In any case the ratio of the decision of this court in Narang Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 22 would apply even in case of substituted third proviso to section 254 (2A). In this case, it was held that Tribunal is not a Court, but it exercises judicial powers and that the Tribunal’s powers to deal with appeals are of the widest amplitude and have in some cases been held similar to and identical with the powers of an appellate Court under the CPC. It would, therefore, be clear that the power to grant stay or interim relief has to be read as co¬extensive with the power to grant final relief. The object being that in the absence of the power to grant interim relief the final relief itself may be defeated.
This Court thereafter followed the decision of the Apex Court in “CCE vs. Kumar Cotton Mills (P) Ltd., (2005(180) ELT 434 (SC)) and held that notwithstanding the pre¬ substituted third proviso to Section 254(2A), the Tribunal continues to have powers to grant interim relief.
The only substantial difference in the pre-substituted third proviso and substituted third proviso to Section 254(2A) is the addition of the words “even if delay in disposing of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee” These additional words added in the substituted third proviso to Section 254(2A)has been struck down by the Delhi High Court in Pepsi Foods (P) Ltd. Vs. Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax, (232 Taxmann 78.)
Accordingly appeals of the revenue dismissed.

CA Deepak Aggarwal