PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GURGAON vs. M/S JINDAL STEEL &POWER LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/418/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117634201714 December 2017Author: MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA,MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the matter was no longer res integra and stood concluded by its own prior decision in ITA No.5 of 2016 titled Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon vs. M/s Carrier Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Limited, decided on 25.04.2016. In that precedent, identical questions as those raised in the present appeal had been held not to constitute substantial questions of law. Therefore, the High Court found no substantial question of law arising from the ITAT's order. The reasoning was based on the established legal position from the earlier judgment, which addressed the same issues concerning the provisos to Section 254(2A). The ratio decidendi is that appeals raising questions already decided by the High Court as not being substantial questions of law are liable to be dismissed. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon (the appellant-revenue) filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 01.02.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench. The appeal concerned Jindal Steel & Power Limited (the respondent-assessee). The core of the dispute revolved around the ITAT's order and the duration of a stay granted by it, which the revenue contended had exceeded 365 days, thereby violating the second and third provisos to Section 254(2A) of the Act. The procedural history indicates that the ITAT had passed an order on 01.02.2017, and the revenue is challenging its validity based on the length of the stay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Hon'ble ITAT has acted in contravention of the second Proviso of Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the combined period of stay has exceeded 365 days? 2. Whether the order of the ITAT be treated as void ab initio in light of the Third Proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which provides that stay of demand stands vacated after the expiry of a period of 365 days, even if delay in disposal of appeal is not attributable to the assessee? Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. The assessee is the respondent in the appeal before the High Court. Revenue's Contentions: The appellant-revenue argued that the ITAT's order was in contravention of the second and third provisos to Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, because the combined period of stay granted by the ITAT had exceeded 365 days. They contended that this violation should render the ITAT's order void ab initio. The revenue relied on the provisions of Section 254(2A) of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 254(2A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:14.12.2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon ... Appellant Vs. Jindal Steel & Power Limited, Delhi Road, Hisar ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL Present:- Mr. T.K.Joshi, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

1.

This appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') against the order dated 01.02.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, “E”, New Delhi, claiming following substantial questions of law:- “ 1. Whether the Hon'ble ITAT has acted in contravention of the second Proviso of Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the combined period of stay has exceeded 365 days?

2.

Whether the order of the ITAT be treated as void ab initio in light of Third Proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which provides that stay of demand stands vacated after expiry of a period of 365 days, even if delay in disposal of appeal is not attributable to the assessee?” Savita 2017.12.14 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh {2}

2.

It was not disputed by 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 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon vs. M/s Carrier Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Limited, decided on 25.04.2016, whereby identical questions as claimed in the present appeal, have been held not to be substantial questions of law.

3.

For the reasons recorded in the aforementioned appeal, the present appeal is dismissed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)

JUDGE (AMIT RAWAL) December 14, 2017 JUDGE savita Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Savita 2017.12.14 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →