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

PDF · subscribers

ITA/370/2018HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01119233201812 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 revenue's counsel did not dispute that the matter in issue was no longer res integra and stood concluded by the decision of this Court in ITA-5-2016, decided on April 25, 2016. In that prior decision, 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 earlier appeal, the present appeal was also dismissed. No specific finding was given on the contravention of Section 254(2A) or the void ab-initio nature of the order, 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 March 17, 2017, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench. The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2011-2012 and challenges the ITAT's decision regarding a stay granted to BMW India Pvt. Ltd. (the assessee). The revenue sought to condone a delay of 150 days in refiling the appeal. The core of the dispute revolves around the duration of a stay granted by the ITAT and its implications under Section 254(2A) of the 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 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) Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The revenue argued that the ITAT contravened Section 254(2A) by exceeding the 365-day limit for stay, rendering the order void ab-initio. The revenue relied on the Third Proviso to Section 254(2A) which states that a stay of demand stands vacated after 365 days, irrespective of who caused the delay in appeal disposal. The revenue also cited the decision of this Court in ITA-5-2016 decided on 25.4.2016.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 254(2A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA-370-2018 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-370-2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.3.2019 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. Tajender K. Joshi, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. *** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

Delay of 150 days in refiling the appeal is condoned.

This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 17.3.2017 (Annexure A-II) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench: 1-2, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in SA No. 178/DEL/2017 IN ITA No. 1514/DEL/2016, for the assessment year 2011- 2012, 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- GURBACHAN SINGH 2019.03.13 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

ITA-370-2018 -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?

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 March 12, 2019 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No GURBACHAN SINGH 2019.03.13 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →