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

PDF · subscribers

ITA/360/2018HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01119222201808 April 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 filed by the revenue. The Court noted that the issue raised by the revenue was no longer res integra and had been concluded by a previous decision of the same Court in ITA-5-2016, decided on 25.4.2016. In that prior judgment, an identical question had been held not to constitute a substantial question of law. Therefore, following its own precedent, the High Court found no merit in the revenue's appeal and dismissed it. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal, with no specific relief granted to the assessee or further directions to the ITAT. No issues were left undecided.

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 3.11.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench. The appeal pertains to assessment year 2011-12 and challenges the ITAT's decision in SA No. 604/DEL/2017 IN ITA No. 1710/Del/2016. The core of the revenue's challenge relates to the ITAT exceeding the statutory period for stay of demand. The High Court heard the learned counsel for the revenue and noted that the issue was no longer debatable.

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 been 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) Contentions: Assessee: No arguments recorded for the assessee. Revenue: The revenue contended that the ITAT had contravened the Second Proviso to Section 254(2A) by exceeding the 365-day period for stay. They argued that the order should be treated as void-ab-initio as per the Third Proviso to Section 254(2A), even if the delay was not attributable to the assessee. The revenue sought to argue that the ITAT's order was bad in law due to the prolonged stay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 254(2A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA-360-2018 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-360-2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: 8.4.2019 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon ....Appellant. Versus Towers Watson India Private Limited ...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 3.11.2017 (Annexure A-5) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'I-1', new Delhi in SA No. 604/DEL/2017 IN ITA No. 1710/Del/2016, for the assessment year 2011-12, 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 been exceeded 365 days?

Whether the order of the ITAT be treated as void- ab-initio in light of Third Proviso to Section 254 GURBACHAN SINGH 2019.04.10 15:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

ITA-360-2018 -2- (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?

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 April 8, 2019 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No GURBACHAN SINGH 2019.04.10 15:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →