THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GURGAON vs. M/S JINDAL STEEL AND POWER LTD.

PDF · subscribers

ITA/412/2018HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01119280201819 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 it was not disputed by the revenue's counsel that the 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 of law as raised in the present appeal was held not to constitute a substantial question of law. Consequently, for the reasons recorded in the earlier appeal, the present appeal was also dismissed. The application for condonation of delay was disposed of as no further orders were required since the appeal itself was dismissed.

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 January 19, 2018, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench. The appeal pertains to assessment year 2010-11 and challenges the ITAT's decision regarding a stay of demand. The revenue sought condonation for a 12-day delay in filing the appeal. The core of the dispute revolves around whether the ITAT had exceeded the permissible period of stay granted under the Income Tax Act.

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 expiry of a period of 365 days, even if delay in disposal of appeal is not attributable to the assessee? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue argued that the ITAT had contravened the Second Proviso to Section 254(2A) by exceeding the 365-day limit for stay. They contended that the order should be treated as void-ab-initio as per the Third Proviso to Section 254(2A), irrespective of who caused the delay in 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-412-2018 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-412-2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.3.2019 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon ....Appellant. Versus Jindal Steel & Power Limited, Hisar ...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 19.1.2018 (Annexure A-II) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench: 1-2, New Delhi in SA No. 27/Del/2018 IN ITA No. 619/Del/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 2019.03.25 14:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

ITA-412-2018 -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.

CM-25048-CII-2018 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of 12 days' delay in filing the appeal. Since, the appeal has been dismissed, no further orders are required to the passed in the said application and the same is disposed of as such. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE March 19, 2019 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No GURBACHAN SINGH 2019.03.25 14:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →