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

PDF · subscribers
ITA/377/2018HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01119240201813 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. It was not disputed by the revenue's counsel that the matter was no longer res integra and had been concluded by a prior decision of the same Court in ITA-5-2016 decided on 25.4.2016. In that earlier case, an identical question as 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. No specific finding was given on the merits of the stay period exceeding 365 days, as the appeal was dismissed on the ground that the issue was already decided by the High Court.

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 9.10.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench. The appeal pertains to assessment year 2011-12 and challenges the ITAT's decision regarding a stay granted to BMW India Pvt. Ltd. (the assessee). The revenue contended that the ITAT had exceeded the statutory period for stay of demand. The ITAT's order was passed in SA No. 528/DEL/2017 in ITA No. 1514/DEL/2016.

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 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 365-day limit for stay of demand, rendering the order void. The revenue relied on the provisions of Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The judgment does not record any 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-377-2018 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-377-2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.3.2019 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon ....Appellant. Versus BMW India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL. PRESENT: Mr. Arun Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. *** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

1.

Delay of 24 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 9.10.2017 (Annexure A-II) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench: 1-2, New Delhi in SA No. 528/DEL/2017 IN ITA No. 1514/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 been exceeded 365 days?

2.

Whether the order of the ITAT be treated as void- GURBACHAN SINGH 2019.03.15 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

ITA-377-2018 -2- 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 March 13, 2019 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No GURBACHAN SINGH 2019.03.15 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →