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

PDF · subscribers
ITA/179/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117368201702 May 2017Author: MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA,MRS JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the matter in issue was no longer res integra and stood concluded by its own previous decision in ITA No. 5 of 2016, decided on 25.04.2016. In that prior decision, an identical question as raised in the present appeal was held not to constitute a substantial question of law. Consequently, following its own precedent, the High Court dismissed the present appeal. The reasoning was based on the principle that the issue had already been authoritatively decided by the same court, and therefore, no further substantial question of law arose for consideration. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon (the Revenue) filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 10.06.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench. The appeal was filed against the ITAT's order concerning assessment year(s) not specified in the judgment. The core of the dispute revolved around the ITAT's alleged contravention of the Second and Third Provisos to Section 254(2A) of the Act, specifically concerning the duration of a stay granted by the ITAT. The Revenue contended that the combined period of stay had exceeded 365 days, rendering the ITAT's order void.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the 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 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? The Revenue argued that the ITAT's order was void because the stay granted exceeded 365 days, contravening Section 254(2A) of the Act. The judgment records no argument for the respondent-assessee, M/s Mitsubishi Electric Automative India Pvt. Ltd.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 254(2A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA-179-2017 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-179-2017 (O&M) Date of decision: 02.05.2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon ..... Appellant Versus M/s Mitsubishi Electric Automative India Pvt. Ltd. Gurgaon ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN 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 10.06.2016 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 Rishu Kataria 2017.05.03 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

ITA-179-2017 (O&M) -2- 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 decided on 25.04.2016, whereby identical question as claimed in the present appeal, has been held not to be substantial question of law.

3.

For the reasons recorded in the aforementioned appeal, the present appeal is dismissed. ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE May 02, 2017 ( RAMENDRA JAIN ) rishu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Rishu Kataria 2017.05.03 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →