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

PDF · subscribers
ITA/169/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117357201711 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 substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue were not substantial questions of law. This conclusion was based on a prior decision of the same High Court 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 concerning the interpretation of Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly regarding the period of stay and its consequences, were held not to constitute substantial questions of law. Therefore, following its own earlier ruling, the High Court dismissed the present appeal. No specific finding was given on the merits of the ITAT's order itself, as the appeal was disposed of on the preliminary ground that the questions of law were not substantial.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 01.04.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai Bench 'K'. The appeal challenged the ITAT's order concerning the duration of a stay granted, which the Revenue contended exceeded 365 days, thereby violating the Second Proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Act. The Revenue argued that the ITAT's order should be treated as void ab initio due to this alleged contravention, even if the delay in disposal was not attributable to the assessee, Towers Watson India Private Limited. The High Court noted that the issue was not res integra.

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? 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: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue contended that the ITAT's order contravened the Second Proviso to Section 254(2A) by allowing the stay to exceed 365 days. Consequently, the Revenue argued that the order should be considered void ab initio as per 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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-169-2017 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.05.2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon ..... Appellant Versus Towers Watson India Private Limited ..... 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 01.04.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench 'K', Mumbai, 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 2017.05.15 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

ITA-169-2017 -2-

3.

For the reasons recorded in the aforementioned appeal, the present appeal is dismissed. ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE May 11, 2017 (HARINDER SINGH SIDHU) dinesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Dinesh Kumar 2017.05.15 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →