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

PDF · subscribers

ITA/78/2019HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01147399201816 May 2019Author: MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the revenue. The Court noted that it was not disputed by the learned counsel for the revenue that the matter in issue was no longer res integra and stood concluded by a previous decision of the same Court in ITA-5-2016, decided on 25.4.2016. In that prior decision, an identical question as raised in the present appeal had been held not to constitute a substantial question of law. Therefore, for the reasons recorded in the aforementioned appeal, the present appeal was also dismissed. The Court did not delve into the merits of the ITAT's order or the specific provisions of Section 254(2A) as the matter was deemed concluded by precedent.

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 22.6.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench. The appeal pertains to assessment year 2010-2011 and challenges the ITAT's decision regarding a stay of demand. The ITAT had previously passed an order in SA No. 452/DEL/2018 in ITA No. 312/Del/2015. The revenue's appeal raises questions concerning the duration of the stay granted by the ITAT and its validity in light of statutory provisions.

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: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue argued that the ITAT contravened Section 254(2A) by allowing the stay to exceed 365 days, rendering the order void-ab-initio as per the Third Proviso to Section 254(2A), irrespective of the cause of delay in appeal 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-78-2019 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-78-2019 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.5.2019 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon ....Appellant. Versus M/s Mitsubishi Electric Automotive India Pvt. Ltd., Manesar, Gurgaon ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL. PRESENT: Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. *** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 22.6.2018 (Annexure A-4) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench: 1-I, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in SA No. 452/DEL/2018 IN ITA No. 312/Del/2015, for the assessment year 2010- 2011, claiming the following substantial questions of law:-

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 GURBACHAN SINGH 2019.05.17 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

ITA-78-2019 -2- 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?

We have heard learned counsel for the revenue.

It was not disputed by the 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-5-2016 decided on 25.4.2016 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 also dismissed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE May 16, 2019 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No GURBACHAN SINGH 2019.05.17 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →