26.Undoubtedly, as rightly pointed out, if the date of expiry of the interim stay is taken into consideration, the petitioner may be correct, as the period of limitation contemplated expired. However, the fact remains that the interim order granted initially on 06.02.2013, which was extended up to 08.06.2014 was neither extended nor vacated by the High Court subsequently. Admittedly, the High Court has not passed any orders either vacating the stay or extending the stay. Thus, no order has been passed on the date of expiry. In practice, the cases are not listed on the date of expiry of interim order in all circumstances by the Registry of High Court, for which the litigants should not made to suffer. In most of the writ petitions, even after the expiry of interim orders, the cases are not listed for various reasons. It is a practical difficulty being faced by the High Courts across the country, as large number of litigations are pending. When the cases are not listed on a particular day more specifically on the day of expiry of an interim order, then the parties cannot be penalised or blamed for non-listing of the matter for hearing, nor parties should made to suffer for the practical difficulties being faced by Courts. In this context, it is to be construed that in the absence of any order passed by the High Court either vacating the interim order or extending the order, it is to be construed that the same position as on 08.04.2014 shall continue for all purposes and the assessee cannot take undue advantages of the situation for the purpose of seeking exoneration from the clutches of the proceedings more specifically, under the IT Act. Such hyper-technical grounds raised cannot be a reason for granting exoneration. The department admittedly had not received any orders from the High Court. The only contention is that the counsels were aware of such orders. Even in such circumstances in the absence of any order communicated, it may not be possible for the Income Tax Department to act in a particular manner. In the event of no order, the Department has to wait for the orders to be received and cannot presume or assume certain implications and take a decision. Thus, the Income Tax Department has rightly acted upon based on the final order passed in the writ petition and the automatic expiry theory as contemplated by the petitioner cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of reckoning the period of limitation with reference to the provisions of the IT Act. This apart, W.P.No.3005 of 2013 was dismissed on merits. Thus, no further adjudication on merits is required in
