PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GURGAON vs. M/S TERADETA INDIA PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers

ITA/264/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117463201720 July 2017Author: MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA,MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. The Court noted that the issue raised was no longer res integra and had been concluded by a previous decision of the same Court in ITA No.5 of 2016 titled as Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon V/s M/s Carrier Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Limited, decided on 25.04.2016. In that prior judgment, an identical question was held not to constitute a substantial question of law. Therefore, following its own precedent, the High Court found no substantial question of law in the present appeal and dismissed it. No specific findings were made on the merits of the stay period or the void ab initio argument, as the appeal was disposed of on the preliminary ground of it not raising a substantial question of law.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon (appellant-revenue) filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 09.09.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench. The appeal challenges the ITAT's order concerning the duration of a stay granted. The core of the dispute revolves around whether the combined period of stay granted by the ITAT exceeded 365 days, as stipulated in the second and third provisos to Section 254(2A) of the Act. The revenue contended that the ITAT's order was void ab initio due to this alleged contravention.

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 (M/s Teradata India (P) Ltd.). Revenue's Contentions: The appellant-revenue argued that the ITAT's order contravened the second proviso to Section 254(2A) by exceeding the 365-day stay period. Consequently, the revenue contended that the order should be treated as void ab initio under the third proviso to Section 254(2A), irrespective of who caused the delay in disposal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 254(2A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA-264-2017 (O&M) 1 114 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

ITA-264-2017 (O&M) Date of decision : 20.07.2017 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon ... appellant(s) Versus M/s Teradata India (P) Ltd. ... Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL Present: Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant-revenue. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL

, J. (ORAL)

This appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(in short 'the Act') against the order dated 09.09.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, “FRIDAY”, 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?

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.?”

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 Yogesh Sharma 2017.07.28 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

ITA-264-2017 (O&M) 2 “Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon V/s M/s Carrier Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Limited”, decided on 25.04.2016, whereby identical question as claimed in the present appeal, has been held not to be substantial question of law.

For the reasons recorded in the aforementioned appeal, the present appeal is dismissed. ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE 20.07.2017 Yogesh Sharma

( AMIT RAWAL)

JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/ No Whether Reportable Yes/ No Yogesh Sharma 2017.07.28 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →