PER N.K.SAINI,VP This Application has been filed by the assessee for granting the stay of the outstanding demand of Rs. 281,07,52,516/-. It has been stated that out of the total demand of Rs. 369,86,02,800/- a sum of Rs. 88,78,50,284/- had already been paid. It has also been stated that earlier stay was granted by theAT for 180 days which expired on 22.04.2018. Thereafter, it was extended upto 19.10.2018 and again an interim order was passed on 12.10.2018 extending the stay by 30 days expiring on 11.11.2018. 2

2. During the course of hearing, ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the contents of stay application and stated that non disposal of the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 1259/CHD/2017 is not attributable to the assessee. It has also been stated that the hearing of this appeal is pending before the Special Bench, which was not conducted for non fault of the assessee, since when this matter was posted for hearing, the Department sought adjournment. Therefore, it is a good case where stay can be granted as was done in past.

3. In his rival submissions, ld. CIT-DR opposed the stay of the outstanding demand and requested for adjournment of the Stay Application by giving in writing vide application dated 14.12.2018 as under : Kindly refer to your office letter F.No.Pr.CCIT/CHD/Judl./2018-19/3175 dated 26.09.2018 on the subject cited above.

2. In the above mentioned letter you have asked this office to move an application before the Honble ITAT, Chandigarh to transfer the above mentioned appeal to ITAT, Mumbai. This is in the backdrop of merger of assessee i.e State Bank of Patiala having PAN:-AACCS0143D with State Bank of India. As a consequence of this merger the jurisdiction of State Bank of Patiala has been transferred" from DCIT, Patiala to ACIT, Circle 2(2)1, 5 Floor , Aaykar Bhawan Mumbai. As evident from the letter of DCIT, Circle Patiala dated 13.09.2018, the records too have been transferred to the Assessing Officer at Mumbai.

3. Now, the above case is fixed for hearing before ITAT, Chandigarh, Special Bench on 17.10.2018. In view of the fact that jurisdiction as well as relevant records have been transferred to Income Tax Office Mumbai, it is imperative that the appeals lying before theAT, Chandigarh, Special Bench are also transferred to Honble ITAT, Mumbai. The transfer of appeals to Honble ITAT Mumbai shall ensure that revenue is adequately represented by Ld. DR/jurisdictional Assessing Authority of Mumbai wherein the jurisdiction and records have been transferred. It shall further assist the Honble Tribunal in deciding the case at rightful jurisdiction.

4. As per ITAT Rules 1963, the Rules 4(1) states that a Bench shall hear and determine such appeals as the President may by general or Special order direct. The Rule 4(1) clearly mandates that it is President of ITAT, which shall be deciding by general or special order as to which Bench shall hear the appeals. In view of the facts that jurisdiction over the assessee i.e State Bank of Patiala on account of its merger with State bank of India stands transferred to ACIT, Circle 2(2)1, 5 th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan Mumbai, the rightful jurisdiction shall vest with ITAT, Mumbai. Therefore, the legally correct course shall be to make a formal request to Honble President of ITAT to pass an order, transferring the above appeal from ITAT Chandigarh to ITAT Mumbai. 3

5. As mentioned above a formal request under ITAT rules 1963 is required to be made before the President ITAT. The legal request under ITAT Rule is required to be made by the concerned Assessing Officer through proper channel.

5.1. Therefore, it is requested that appropriate directions may be issued to the office of DCIT, Circle, Patiala for taking immediate steps for ensuring transfer of appeals from ITAT Chandigarh to ITAT, Mumbai.

4. During the course of hearing, the ld. CIT-DR did not press for adjournment, however strongly opposed the granting of stay of outstanding demand. In his rival submissions, ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee will suffer an irreparable loss if the stay is not granted.

5. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that out of the original outstanding demand of Rs. 369.86 Cr, the assessee had already deposited Rs. 88.78 Cr i.e. 24%. It is also an admitted fact that the assessee was earlier granted stay of the outstanding demand vide order dated

24.10.2017 for 180 days which was extended for another period of 180 days vide order dated 19.04.2018, again stay was extended for another 30 days vide order dated

12.10.2018. In the instant case, non disposal of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee.

6. Now vide application dated 14.12.2018, the ld. CIT- DR has pointed out that an application for transfer of the main appeal in I.T.A. No. 510 and 538/CHD/2017 for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively alongwith the present appeal in ITA 1259/CHD/2017 for the assessment year 2015-16 to Mumbai Benches, as the jurisdiction of the subject assessee had been transferred 4 to the ACIT, Circle 2(2)(1), Aaykar Bhawan, Karva Road, Church Gate, Mumbai. The ld. CIT-DR vide para 4(b) of the aforesaid application dated 14.12.2018 requested to transfer this stay application also to the Mumbai Bench in case the main appeals are transferred from Chandigarh to Mumbai Benches.

7. We, therefore, considering the totality of the facts as discussed hereinabove are of the view that an interim stay may be granted to the assessee till the appeals are transferred. We order accordingly. This stay application also be clubbed alongwith those main appeals and to be fixed for hearing on the same date till that date, the outstanding demand is stayed and Department is directed not to take any coercive step to recover the outstanding demand. We also direct the Department to take the appropriate steps in accordance with law, for getting the appeals transferred from Chandigarh to Mumbai Benches as has been mentioned in para 2 of the application dated

14.12.2018. For the aforesaid proposition, both the parties agreed.

8. In the result, the Stay Application of the assessee is allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the Open Court. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (DR.B.R.R.KUMAR) (SANJAY GARG) (N.K.SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Dat ed: 18 t h December, 2018. Poonam Copy t o:

1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CI T(A)4. The CI T, DR Assist ant Regist rar, I TAT/CHD