1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. WRIT PETITION NO.921 OF 2010 Sulzer India Limited ..Petitioner. Vs. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Mumbai and others ..Respondents. .... Mr. J.D. Mistry, Senior Advocate with Mr.P.C. Tripathi i/b Mr. Atul K. Jasani for the Petitioner. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Respondents. .... CORAM : DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. 3 May, 2010. P.C.: 1. Two reliefs have been sought in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution; (i) There is a challenge to the constitutional validity of the third proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; and (ii) A direction has been sought to the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal filed by the Petitioner against the imposition of a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) which was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal is seized of the quantum appeal filed by the Petitioner and by the Revenue against 2 the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 19 January 2007. An appeal has also been filed before the Tribunal against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 24 February 2009 dismissing an appeal filed by the assessee against the imposition of a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). In the appeal filed before the Tribunal against the imposition of the penalty, the Tribunal by its order dated 8 May 2009 granted a stay of recovery for a period of six months or till the disposal of the appeal whichever is earlier and placed the appeal for hearing on 18 August 2009. Subsequently by an order dated 27 November 2009 the stay was extended until 31 March 2010 or the disposal of the appeal which was listed for hearing on 11 February 2010. Finally by an order dated 7 April 2010, the outstanding demand was directed to be kept in abeyance until 7 May 2010. The maximum period for which the stay could have been granted in terms of Section 254 (2A) has expired. Both the quantum appeal and the appeal against the penalty have not been disposed of. We find no justification for both the appeal arising out of the assessment and the imposition of the penalty being kept pending during this period. 3 2. In the circumstances, we dispose of this petition by directing the Tribunal to dispose of the quantum appeal and the appeal against the penalty expeditiously and preferably within a period of two months from the date on which a certified copy of this order is placed before the Tribunal. In view of the direction for expeditious hearing that has been passed in these proceedings, counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue states that no coercive steps shall be taken for enforcing the demand towards penalty for the period stipulated herein above in the order of this Court. In view of the aforesaid directions, the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 254(2A) is not pressed and hence, it is not necessary for the Court to determine that question. The Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)