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

PDF · subscribers
ITA/168/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117356201711 May 2017Author: MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA,MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal. It was not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant-revenue that the matter in issue was no longer res integra and stood concluded by a previous decision of the same 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 earlier decision, an identical question as raised in the present appeal was held not to be a substantial question of law. Therefore, for the reasons recorded in the aforementioned appeal, the present appeal was 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 12.07.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Friday Bench, New Delhi. The appeal was filed against the ITAT's decision concerning the duration of a stay granted under the Second Proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Act. The Revenue contended that the combined period of stay had exceeded 365 days, rendering the ITAT's order void ab initio. The assessee, Atotech India Ltd., was the respondent. The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh was hearing the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Hon'ble ITAT has acted in contravention to the Second Proviso to 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's order was in contravention of Section 254(2A) of the Act because the period of stay granted exceeded 365 days. They contended that the order should be treated as void ab initio as per the Third Proviso to Section 254(2A), even if the delay in disposal was not attributable to the assessee.

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-168-2017 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.05.2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon ..... Appellant Versus Atotech India 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 12.07.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Friday Bench, New Delhi, claiming following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether the Hon'ble ITAT has acted in contravention to the Second Proviso to 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-168-2017 -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 →