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

PDF · subscribers
ITA/8523/2018HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01146771201810 May 2019Author: MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed 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 had been concluded by a previous decision of the same Court in ITA-5-2016, decided on April 25, 2016. In that prior judgment, an identical question to the one 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 also dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the revenue's appeal.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon (the appellant/revenue) filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated December 15, 2017, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench. The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2010-2011 and challenges the ITAT's decision in SA No. 707/DEL/2017 in ITA No. 312/Del/2015. The revenue sought to condone a delay of 91 days in refiling the appeal. The core of the dispute revolves around the duration of a stay granted by the ITAT and its implications under the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the ITAT 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? The revenue argued that the ITAT had contravened the provisions of Section 254(2A) by exceeding the permissible stay period. The revenue contended that the stay should have been vacated after 365 days, rendering the subsequent order void. The judgment records no specific arguments from 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

ITA-8523-2018 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-8523-2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.5.2019 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 MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN. PRESENT: Mr. Arun Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. *** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

1.

Delay of 91 days in refiling the appeal is condoned.

2.

This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 15.12.2017 (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. 707/DEL/2017 IN ITA No. 312/Del/2015, for the assessment year 2010- 2011, claiming the following substantial questions of law:-

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 been exceeded 365 days? GURBACHAN SINGH 2019.05.14 13:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

ITA-8523-2018 -2-

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?

3.

We have heard learned counsel for the revenue.

4.

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.

5.

For the reasons recorded in the aforementioned appeal, the present appeal is also dismissed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE May 10, 2019 (AVNEESH JHINGAN) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No GURBACHAN SINGH 2019.05.14 13:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →