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

PDF · subscribers
ITA/495/2018HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01119370201827 March 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 in question 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 raised in the present appeal was held not to constitute a substantial question of law. Therefore, for the reasons recorded in the earlier decision, the present appeal was also dismissed. The Court did not delve into the merits of the provisos to Section 254(2A) as the appeal was disposed of based on 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 20.4.2018 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. 325/DEL/2018 in ITA No. 1710/DEL/2016. The revenue's appeal raises questions regarding the ITAT's adherence to the second and third provisos of Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically concerning the duration of a stay granted by the Tribunal and its potential vacating. The High Court heard the learned counsel for the revenue.

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? Contentions: Assessee: No arguments recorded for the assessee. Revenue: Argued that the ITAT contravened Section 254(2A) by allowing the stay to exceed 365 days, rendering its order void-ab-initio. The revenue relied on the provisions of Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 254(2A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA-495-2018 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-495-2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.3.2019 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon ....Appellant. Versus Towers Watson India Private Limited, 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.

1.

This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 20.4.2018 (Annexure A-5) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench: I-1, New Delhi in SA No. 325/DEL/2018 IN ITA No. 1710/DEL/2016, for the assessment year 2011-12, 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 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 GURBACHAN SINGH 2019.03.28 14:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

ITA-495-2018 -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?

2.

We have heard learned counsel for the revenue.

3.

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.

4.

For the reasons recorded in the aforementioned appeal, the present appeal is also dismissed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE March 27, 2019 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No GURBACHAN SINGH 2019.03.28 14:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →