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

PDF · subscribers

ITA/8513/2018HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01152765201803 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 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 earlier decision, an identical question as raised in the present appeal had been 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 Court did not separately address each of the substantial questions of law framed by the revenue, as the appeal was disposed of based on the 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 4.5.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), 'K' Bench, Mumbai. The appeal pertains to assessment year 2010-11 and challenges the ITAT's order in SA No. 285/MUM/2018 IN ITA No. 1140/MUM/2015. The dispute concerns the ITAT's handling of a stay application and the duration of the stay granted. The revenue's appeal was heard by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh.

What were the issues?

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 Section 254(2A) by exceeding the permissible stay period of 365 days, rendering its order void. The revenue contended that the stay should have been vacated automatically after 365 days, irrespective of who caused the delay. The ITAT's decision was under challenge. The judgment does not record any arguments from the respondent-assessee, Towers Watson India Private Limited.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 254(2A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA-8513-2018 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-8513-2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: 3.4.2019 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 4.5.2018 (Annexure A-5) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'K' Bench, Mumbai in SA No. 285/MUM/2018 IN ITA No. 1140/MUM/2015, for the assessment year 2010-11, 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 2019.04.06 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

ITA-8513-2018 -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 3, 2019 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No GURBACHAN SINGH 2019.04.06 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →