THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GURGAON vs. M/S HONDA MOTORCYCLE AND SCOOTER INDIA PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/355/2019HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01079209201913 January 2020Author: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the question of law in the present appeal was not a substantial question of law. This finding was based on the concession made by the Revenue's counsel, who admitted that the issue was concluded by the High Court's own prior decision in ITA No.5 of 2016. In that earlier case, an identical question was determined not to be a substantial question of law. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the present appeal. The ratio decidendi is that an appeal under Section 260A of the Act can only be admitted if a substantial question of law arises, and if a prior judgment of the same court has already held an identical question not to be substantial, then a subsequent appeal on the same issue will be dismissed. The pending Civil Misc. Application, if any, was disposed of as a consequence of the main appeal being dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon (Revenue) filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 04.01.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, New Delhi. The ITAT's order was in relation to a Stay Application (SA No.974/DEL/2018) concerning an appeal (ITA No.7714/DEL/2017) for the assessment year 2012-13. The assessee is Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India Pvt. Ltd., IMT Manesar, Gurgaon. The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh heard the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the question of law arising in the appeal is a substantial question of law, as required for an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The assessee did not present any arguments as the appeal was dismissed based on a prior ruling. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the assessee. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue conceded that the matter in issue was no longer res integra and stood concluded by a previous decision of the same High Court in ITA No.5 of 2016 (Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon Vs. M/s Carrier Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Ltd.), decided on 25.04.2016. This prior decision held that an identical question of law was not a substantial question of law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cited by 4 judgments on BharatTax

See all citing judgments →

Counted from the text of the judgments hosted here. Most recent first.

-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Date of Decision: 13.01.2020 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon Appellant Versus Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India Pvt. Ltd., IMT Manesar, Gurgaon Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Present: Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. **** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral): [1] The present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short 'the Act'], against the order dated 04.01.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, New Delhi in SA No.974/DEL/2018 (in ITA No.7714/DEL/2017) dated 04.01.2019 for the assessment year 2012-13. [2] It was not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant-Revenue that the matter in issue is no longer res integra and stands concluded by the decision of this Court in ITA No.5 of 2016, titled as “Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon Vs. M/s Carrier Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Ltd.”, decided on 25.04.2016, whereby, identical question as claimed in the present PANKAJ BAWEJA 2020.01.14 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Ciourt, Chandigarh -2- appeal, has been held not to be substantial question of law. [3]

For the reasons recorded in the aforementioned appeal, the present appeal is dismissed. [4] Since the main case has been dismissed, the pending Civil Misc. Application, if any, stands disposed of.

[AJAY TEWARI] JUDGE [AVNEESH JHINGAN] JUDGE January 13, 2020

pankaj baweja

1.

Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No 2. Whether reportable : Yes / No PANKAJ BAWEJA 2020.01.14 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Ciourt, Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →