Judgment:
1. This is a stay petition of the assessee arising out of the aforesaid appeals.
2. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that : the stay petition has become infructuous as the Department has collected the entire disputed tax. Hence, the stay petition may be treated as not pressed for disposal accordingly. In this connection, letter dated 10th July, 1998, from the assessee's counsel addressed to the Tribunal is also filed in support thereof.
3. On the other hand, the learned representative for the Revenue had nothing to say in the matter.
4. In the result, the stay petition of the assessee is dismissed as not pressed for vide my ex parte order 1. I have perused the order prepared by my learned brother. While agreeing with the conclusion of my learned brother I would like to place the facts of this case in the order because I feel great injustice has been done with the assessee without any fault on its part by fixing the stay petition on 27th July, 1998, while the application for the stay was filed by the assessee on 3rd September, 1996, i.e., after the expiry of 25 months from the date of filing of the stay petition. The assessee has filed the appeals in this case on 26th July, 1995, for the asst. yrs. 1984-85 to 1988-89 before this Tribunal.
During the pendency of the appeals an application under r. 35A of the ITAT Rules, 1963, was filed on 3rd September, 1996, praying for the stay of the balance outstanding demand of Rs. 1,69,491 which remained after the payment of Rs. 80,951. In column 6(a) of the application the assessee has stated that it has filed stay application on 21st July, 1995, before the Director of IT (Exemptions), Madras, but this application for stay of collection of disputed demand was yet to be disposed of. The Registry office of Chennai Benches of this Tribunal has made a note that the reply from the Director of IT (Exemptions) for stay of collection of tax was not enclosed and the assessee has moved a consolidated stay petition for the asst. yrs. 1986-87 to 1988-89 and, therefore, if approved a defective memo may be issued. Accordingly, a defective letter dated 25th October, 1996, was issued to the assessee.
The assessee on 22nd November, 1996, again requested for the early fixation of the appeals in which it has stated that the Asstt. Director of IT (Exemptions)-IV, Chennai, has taken coercive steps for the recovery of the disputed demand which has adversely affected the operation of the activities of the trust. On this application, a letter dated 15th January, 1997, was issued to the assessee and it has been asked to file evidence to show that the Asstt. Director of IT (Exemptions)-IV, Madras, has taken coercive steps for the recovery of the demand so that this office can take further action. After that no action has been taken by the Registry and neither the appeals were fixed at 'the earliest nor the stay petition was fixed. The assessee's letter dated 10th July, 1998, is available on record in which it has been stated that the Department has collected the entire disputed tax and, therefore, the stay petition has become infructuous. This letter was written on behalf of the assessee when the stay application was fixed for 10th July, 1998. The stay petition was again adjourned to 27th July, 1998, on which date the stay petition was finally heard by us. I am constrained to say that very unfortunate events have taken place in this case at the instance of the Registry and all the concerned causing harassment and injustice to this petitioner-assessee.
The delay of 25 months from the date of filing of the petition on 3rd September, 1996, till the date of final hearing on 27th July, 1998, in not listing and hearing this petition before the Bench by the Registry officials is not encouraging at all and the assessee could not get the reply from the Director of IT (Exemptions) on its stay application filed before him. Had the concerned Registry officials of this Tribunal appreciated the stay application properly there would have been no ground to delay the hearing and final orders. The purpose of obtaining the stay from this Tribunal pending appeal is to prevent the Revenue authorities from taking coercive action against the assessee which may cause harassment and loss and injury to the assessee if the assessee finally succeeds in appeal. This is frustrated in this case. The defects pointed out were based on flimsy grounds which are not permissible, in my opinion, under the law. When an appeal is filed and remained pending before this Tribunal no IT authority under the IT Act howsoever high power it may have is competent to grant stay of the demand disputed and involved in the appeal pending before this Tribunal. This Tribunal possesses an inherent and ancillary power along with its appellate jurisdiction to grant the stay in respect of the pending demand to the assessee. The AO under s. 220(6) of the IT Act, 1961, is empowered to treat an assessee as not being in default so long as the appeal is pending before the first appellate authority. In my opinion neither the assessing authority nor any other superior administrative authority of the IT Department has any power to grant stay of the collection/recovery of the demand disputed when an appeal is pending for adjudication before this Tribunal under s. 253 of the IT Act, 1961. This being the position of law I fail to understand why the rejection order for the stay of the demand from the Director of IT (Exemptions) is required for the purpose of deciding the stay application before this Tribunal. It is not legally required that the assessee should produce a copy of the rejection order of the stay of demand from the Director of IT (Exemptions). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Bansi Dhar & Sons (1986) 157 ITR 665 (SC) has clearly interpreted the legal position for stay of demand. Prior to this decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. M. K.Mohd. Kunhi (1969) 71 ITR 815 (SC) has clearly laid down that the power to grant stay of recovery lies with the Tribunal when appeal is pending with it. With this obvious legal position I fail to understand why the Registry should not post the stay petition for hearing and orders before the concerned Bench when the stay petition is registered and numbered. In my opinion the Registry has exceeded its authority in not immediately placing the stay petition before the concerned Bench for hearing and appropriate order. It has in my view erred in noting the defect that the copy of Director of Exemption's order on the stay application of the assessee should be filed and stay applications should be made separately for each of the assessment years. In my opinion the whole purpose of moving the stay application before this Tribunal has been frustrated in this case due to the delay in fixation of the stay petition any by raising the defect which were not legally permissible.