JUDGMENT : 1. This intra-Court appeal is directed against the order dated 17.07.2017 as passed in W.P. No. 13601 of 2017, whereby a learned Single Judge of this Court has, in modification of the conditions for stay, as imposed on the respondent-company (hereinafter also referred to as the 'assessee-company') by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal') in the order dated 22.03.2017, has directed that the respondent-company may deposit 30% of the disputed tax demand instead of depositing 50% of the demand, in relation to its appeal for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The relevant background aspects of the matter are that the respondent-company, said to be engaged in the business of providing Information Technology and IT Enabled Services to its overseas group companies, filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2012-13 while declaring total income of Rs. 247,93,42,280/-. However, the Assessing Officer, in the final assessment order dated 31.01.2017, assessed the taxable income of the respondent- company at Rs. 1102,82,14,381/- and raised a demand of Rs. 486,46,79,020/- towards tax and interest. 3. In the appeal preferred by the respondent-company against the assessment order aforesaid, being ITA No.387/Bang/2017, the Tribunal considered the prayer for interim relief in S.P. No.45/Bang/2017, wherein it was urged on behalf of the respondent-company, with reference to the Office Memorandum dated 29.12.2015 as issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, that the demand be stayed upon payment of 15% thereof. 4. It appears that during the course of consideration of the matter for interim relief, the Tribunal offered to grant stay subject to payment of 30% of the total tax demand, but such a proposition was declined by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee-company. The Tribunal pointed out this aspect of the matter in its impugned order dated 22.03.2017 as follows: "5. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the material on record. At the first instance, without going into the merits of the matter, the Bench has offered to grant stay subject to the payment of 30% of the total tax demand to which the ld. Senior Advocate has refused, therefore, the bench is left with no other option but to decide the matter on merit." 5. At the first instance, without going into the merits of the matter, the Bench has offered to grant stay subject to the payment of 30% of the total tax demand to which the ld. Senior Advocate has refused, therefore, the bench is left with no other option but to decide the matter on merit." 5. Thereafter, the Tribunal proceeded to consider the prayer for grant of stay with reference to the requirements of prima facie case, irreparable loss and balance of convenience; and even after being not satisfied on these requirements, proceeded to order stay of the demand subject to the payment of 50% of the tax demand while observing as under: 17. In our view, the payment of the tax in demand is required to be stayed only for valid reasons and not merely because the appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the assessment order before the Tribunal. The financial position of the assessee is required to be seen along with the satisfaction of the ingredients for the grant of stay i.e., whether the assesses is having a good prima facie case for grant of stay and further whether assessee is able to establish the balance of convenience lies in its favour and also whether the assessee shall suffer irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in terms of money. In our view, the assessee has sound financial position to pay the tax demand and further the assessee has not been able to establish the prima facie case for non-recovery of the tax demand or to show that the tax demand raised pursuant to the assessment order was not payable. 18. In view therefore, we are left with no other option but to grant stay of demand subject to deposit 50% of the tax demand. Out of the said 50% of the tax demand, the petitioner shall deposit 20% of the tax demand within 7 days of this order and the balance amount shall be paid by the petitioner within 180 days in six equal installments. 19. Let the appeal be listed on 25/04/2017 for hearing the appellant is directed to file the advance copy of paper book in the matter. 20. In the result, the stay application of the assessee is disposed of in the light of above directions." 6. 19. Let the appeal be listed on 25/04/2017 for hearing the appellant is directed to file the advance copy of paper book in the matter. 20. In the result, the stay application of the assessee is disposed of in the light of above directions." 6. The writ petition preferred by the respondent-company (being W.P. No. 13601 of 2017) against the order aforesaid came to be decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court by way of the impugned order dated 17.07.2017. The learned Single Judge referred to the above-mentioned observations, as appearing in paragraph 5 of the Tribunal's order (reproduced hereinabove) and found that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer on behalf of the respondent-company could be accepted, coupled with a request to the Tribunal to decide the pending appeal as also the connected appeals expeditiously. The learned Single Judge, accordingly, disposed of the writ petition while modifying the directions of the Tribunal as follows: "7. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a slight notification of the direction given in paragraph-18 of the impugned order dated 22.03.2017 passed by the learned Tribunal that instead of 50% of the total tax demand, the petitioner-company may deposit 30% of the said total tax demand disputed before the learned Tribunal and if the petitioner-company has already deposited 20% of the tax demand in view of the aforesaid direction of the learned Tribunal, remaining 10% of the same also be deposited by the petitioner-company within the aforesaid period of one month as undertaken by the learned Senior counsel on behalf of the petitioner-company." 7. The Revenue has preferred the present appeal essentially on the grounds that the learned Single Judge has modified the order of the Tribunal without notice to it and without any justification. 8. The fact remains indisputable that the order dated 17.07.2017 has been passed by the learned Single Judge without notice to the Revenue. However, during the course of hearing, a relevant subsequent order dated 13.12.2017 by another learned Single Judge of this Court in a batch of writ petitions led by W.P. No. 55578 of 2017 has been brought to our notice, whereby different stipulations, of course, subject to the decision of this appeal, have been provided as regards stay of demand concerning the respondent- company for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 9. 9. The relevant background aspects leading to the said order dated 13.12.2017 had been that in a common order dated 08.12.2017, the Tribunal examined the stay applications moved by the assessee-company in different appeals pertaining to different Assessment Years, which included the stay application in ITA No.387/Bang/2017 for the Assessment Year 2012-13 (which is the subject matter of the present writ appeal); and, while exercising the jurisdiction under the second proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, directed the assessee-company to deposit 55% of the outstanding dues in respect of the Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2012-13 and to retain another 20% in its bank account. This common order of the Tribunal was challenged by the assessee-company in the batch of writ petitions, which were decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court by way of the said order dated 13.12.2017. 10. In the said order dated 13.12.2017, the learned Single Judge, with reference to other orders passed by this Court in similar nature matters, wherein about 75% of the outstanding was secured (with 55% deposit and 20% retention in bank account); and with reference to the amount already paid by the assessee-company, found it just and proper to order in relation to the Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11 (where about 50% had already been deposited) that the assessee-company shall furnish Bank Guarantee for the balance of 25% of the outstanding dues. As regards the Assessment Year 2011-12, the learned Single Judge noticed that the assessee-company had paid 30% of the outstanding dues and therefore, directed it to make payment of the remaining 20% and to furnish Bank Guarantee in respect of the balance 25%. 11. As regards the Assessment Year 2012-13, the learned Single Judge noticed the facts concerning the order dated 17.07.2017 as passed in W.P. No.13601 of 2017 as also the pendency of the present writ appeal; and in order to balance the equities, directed that the assessee-company shall furnish Bank Guarantee to the extent of 45% of the dues, subject to the orders to be passed in this writ appeal. The learned Single Judge further issued a direction for expeditious disposal of the appeals pending in the Tribunal. The learned Judge, inter alia, observed and directed as under: "10. The learned Single Judge further issued a direction for expeditious disposal of the appeals pending in the Tribunal. The learned Judge, inter alia, observed and directed as under: "10. In so far as Assessment Year 2012-13 is concerned, it is noted that even when the stay was granted in the first instance by the Tribunal by exercising jurisdiction under the first proviso to Section 254 (2A) of the Act, the Tribunal had ordered that 50% of the dues be deposited. The said order was assailed by the assessee in Writ Petition No.13601/2017. This Court by the order dated 17.7.2017, reduced the percentage to be paid from 50% to 30%. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said direction has been complied with. In the circumstances, the Tribunal, in my view, could not have once again directed the petitioner to pay 55% of the amount, having regard to the fact that the order dated 17.7.2017 has, for the present, attained finality and has not yet been interfered with in appeal. Though learned counsel for the respondent-Department submits that Writ Appeal No.5193/2017 has been filed by the Department against the said order, the same is pending consideration by the Division Bench of this Court. 11. In the circumstances, as far as Assessment Year 2012-13 is concerned, there cannot be a direction to the petitioner to deposit further 20% as the same is pending adjudication before the Division Bench. Instead, the petitioner is directed to furnish a Bank Guarantee for 45% of the dues as far as that Assessment Year is concerned. The said Bank Guarantee shall also be furnished on or before 31st December 2017. It is needless to observe that the directions issued as far as Assessment Year 2012-13 is concerned, the same is subject to any further orders to be passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.5193/2017. Pending such order, the aforesaid direction would prevail. 12. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent-Department, it is noted that in the earlier writ petition disposed of by this Court, while staying the impugned directions of the Tribunal, on compliance of the directions issued by this Court, a further direction was issued to the Tribunal to dispose of that appeal concerning the Assessment Year 2013-14 on or before 31st January 2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said appeal is under consideration before the Tribunal. In the circumstances, a similar order would have to be made in so far as these appeals are concerned. Accordingly, the stay granted by the Tribunal is extended till the disposal of the appeals by the Tribunal, subject to compliance of aforesaid directions by the petitioner. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the appeals, out of which, these writ petitions arise, on or before 31st of March 2018. It is needless to observe that in view of the specific direction issued by this Court for expeditious disposal of the appeals by the Tribunal, both parties are directed to co- operate with the Tribunal in that regard. In the circumstances, the impugned order stands modified with regard to the direction for deposit of the amount, as well as, the period of stay." 12. Learned counsel for the appellants has strenuously argued that the impugned order dated 17.07.2017 deserves to be modified and the respondent-company deserves to be directed to deposit at least 20% of the remaining dues and to furnish Bank Guarantee for the remaining 25%, as has been stipulation in other cases by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the order dated 13.12.2017. Learned counsel would re-emphasize that the impugned order dated 17.07.2017 deserves to be interfered with, for having been passed without an opportunity of hearing to the appellants. 13. The learned counsel for the respondent-company, per contra, has contended that the orders as passed by the respective learned Single Judges deserve not to be interfered with now at this stage, particularly when the appeals are to be decided shortly by the Tribunal in terms of the order passed by this Court. Learned counsel would submit that the arrangement as provided in the order dated 13.12.2017 may be continued at least until 31.3.2018, by which date the appeals are to be decided and if the concerned appeal is not decided by that date, another proposition for depositing 20% out of the Bank Guarantee may be examined by the Tribunal. 14. Having given thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned at the present stage; and, in our view, a little modification would suffice. 15. 14. Having given thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned at the present stage; and, in our view, a little modification would suffice. 15. True it is that by the impugned order dated 17.07.2017, a substantial variation was made in the order of the Tribunal and the requirement of depositing 50% of the impugned tax demand by the respondent-company was reduced to that of 30%; and it remains indisputable that the impugned order dated 17.07.2017 was passed by the learned Single Judge without notice to the present appellants. That being the position, ordinarily, we might have considered restoring the writ petition for re-consideration after an opportunity of hearing to the present appellants but, adopting of such a course does not appear necessary in the singular facts of this case and for the peculiar subsequent event pertaining to the order dated 13.12.2017, as noticed hereinabove. 16. The resultant effect of the two orders passed by the writ Courts i.e., the one dated 17.07.2017, which is impugned in this appeal and another dated 13.12.2017, is that in relation to ITA No.387/Bang/2017 pertaining to the Assessment Year 2012-13, the respondent-company has deposited 30% of the demand (pursuant to the order dated 17.07.2017); and has furnished Bank Guarantee to the extent of 45% of the demand (pursuant to the order dated 13.12.2017). This is coupled with the fact that, as per the directions of the Court, the appeal in question, as pending before the Tribunal, is to be decided by 31.03.2018. 17. In the given set of facts and circumstances, where the interest of the revenue stands adequately safeguarded, we do not find any justification for bringing about a new state of affairs until disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal. Of course, if the appeal is not decided by the stipulated date and if the delay is attributable to the respondent-company, the Tribunal deserves to be given the liberty to pass appropriate further order, as deemed fit and necessary in the matter. This much of modification, in our view, would meet the ends of justice. 18. Of course, if the appeal is not decided by the stipulated date and if the delay is attributable to the respondent-company, the Tribunal deserves to be given the liberty to pass appropriate further order, as deemed fit and necessary in the matter. This much of modification, in our view, would meet the ends of justice. 18. Accordingly and in view of the above, this appeal stands disposed of in the manner that the impugned order dated 17.07.2017 shall be read as modified by the aforesaid order dated 13.12.2017; and the order dated 13.12.2017 is made absolute as regards the appeal concerning the Assessment Year 2012-13 (ITA No.387/Bang/2017). It is, however provided that in case the said appeal is not decided by 31.03.2018 and the delay is attributable to the respondent-company, the Tribunal shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as regards the interim arrangement while keeping in view the arrangements otherwise provided in relation to other Assessment Years in the said order dated 13.12.2017. No costs.