THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GURGAON vs. M/S BMW INDIA PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/209/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117402201712 May 2017Author: MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA,MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN2 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 earlier decision, identical questions of law as those raised in the present appeal were held not to constitute substantial questions of law. Therefore, following its own precedent, the High Court dismissed the present appeal. The reasoning was based on the principle of stare decisis, where a court is bound by its previous decisions on similar matters. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, represented by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 22.03.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench. The appeal pertained to assessment year 2010-11 and challenged the ITAT's decision regarding the duration of a stay granted. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the ITAT had contravened the Second Proviso of Section 254(2A) of the Act by allowing the combined period of stay to exceed 365 days, and consequently, whether the ITAT's order should be treated as void-ab-initio. The amount in dispute was not specified. The procedural history involved an appeal filed by the Revenue against an ITAT order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Hon'ble ITAT has acted in contravention to the Second Proviso of Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the combined period of stay has exceeded 365 days? (Question of law) 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? (Question of law) Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue argued that the ITAT had contravened the Second Proviso of Section 254(2A) by exceeding the 365-day stay period and that the order should be void-ab-initio based on the Third Proviso to Section 254(2A). The Revenue relied on the substantial questions of law framed in the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 254(2A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-209-2017 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.05.2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon ..... Appellant Versus BMW India Pvt. Ltd. ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU Present:- Mr. Tajinder K. Joshi, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant-Revenue. 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 22.03.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench: '1-2' New Delhi, in SA No. 188/Del/2016(in ITA No. 1406/Del/2015) for the assessment year 2010- 11, claiming following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether the Hon'ble ITAT has acted in contravention to 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.”

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 question as claimed in the present appeal, has been held not to be substantial question of law. Dinesh Kumar 2017.05.17 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

ITA-209-2017 -2-

3.

For the reasons recorded in the aforementioned appeal, the present appeal is dismissed. ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE May 12, 2017 (HARINDER SINGH SIDHU) dinesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Dinesh Kumar 2017.05.17 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →