{"id":2343,"date":"2010-12-09T13:15:16","date_gmt":"2010-12-09T07:45:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=2343"},"modified":"2010-12-09T13:15:16","modified_gmt":"2010-12-09T07:45:16","slug":"dhl-express-india-p-ltd-vs-acit-itat-mumbai-stay-application-in-tribunal-maintainable-despite-non-filing-of-stay-petition-before-lower-authorities","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/dhl-express-india-p-ltd-vs-acit-itat-mumbai-stay-application-in-tribunal-maintainable-despite-non-filing-of-stay-petition-before-lower-authorities\/","title":{"rendered":"DHL Express (India) P Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n
Click here to download the judgement (dhl_express_stay_application.pdf) <\/strong> <\/a><\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n

Stay Application in Tribunal maintainable despite non-filing of stay petition before lower authorities<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

The assessee filed an application in the Tribunal seeking stay on recovery of demand of Rs. 7.05 crores raised pursuant to the order of the Dispute Resolution Tribunal. The stay application was filed without approaching the lower authorities for stay<\/em>. The department, relying on RPG Enterprises Ltd vs. DCIT<\/strong> 251 ITR 20 (AT) (Bom), opposed the application<\/strong> on the ground that the assessee ought to have approached the lower authorities first so that \u201cthe department would get an opportunity to study the situation and gather the necessary data for evaluating the application for stay and may also get an opportunity in protecting the interests of the Revenue<\/em>\u201d. HELD rejecting the objection: <\/p>\n

There are differences in the approach of the Tribunal on whether the tribunal can be directly approached for stay of demand without approaching the lower authorities. In view of the decision in Broswel Pharmaceutical Inc vs ITO<\/strong> 83 TTJ 126 (All) it is not mandatory on the part of the assessee to move application before the Revenue Authorities for granting of stay of outstanding demand<\/strong>. Accordingly, there is no merit in the argument of the department that the stay application should be rejected outright since the assessee has not moved any petition before the Revenue Authorities seeking stay of the demand. Seeking stay before the lower authorities is directory and not mandatory<\/strong>. <\/p>\n

\nSee Also: Susanta Kumar Nayak vs. UOI<\/strong> 185 ITR 627 (Cal), Nagarjuna Fertilzers vs. DCIT<\/strong> 80 ITD 218 (Hyd) & Reuters India<\/strong> 3 SOT 886 (Del) where the same view has been taken.\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

There are differences in the approach of the Tribunal on whether the tribunal can be directly approached for stay of demand without approaching the lower authorities. In view of the decision in Broswel Pharmaceutical Inc vs ITO<\/strong> 83 TTJ 126 (All) it is not mandatory on the part of the assessee to move application before the Revenue Authorities for granting of stay of outstanding demand<\/strong>. Accordingly, there is no merit in the argument of the department that the stay application should be rejected outright since the assessee has not moved any petition before the Revenue Authorities seeking stay of the demand since seeking stay before the lower authorities is directory and not mandatory<\/strong><\/p>\n

Read more ›<\/a><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2343","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-tribunal"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2343","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2343"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2343\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2343"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2343"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2343"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}