THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GURGAON vs. M/S CARRIER AIR-CONDITIONING AND REFRIGERATION LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/117/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117300201728 March 2017Bench: MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA,MRS JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the matter in issue was no longer res integra and stood concluded by its own prior decision in ITA No. 5 of 2016 decided on 25.04.2016. In that earlier decision, an identical question, as raised in the present appeal, was held not to constitute a substantial question of law. Therefore, following its own precedent, the High Court dismissed the present appeal. The reasoning was based on the principle of stare decisis, where a court is bound by its previous rulings on similar matters. No specific finding was given on the merits of the ITAT's order regarding the stay period, as the appeal was dismissed on the preliminary ground that the questions raised were not substantial questions of law.

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 05.08.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench. The appeal challenged the ITAT's decision concerning the duration of a stay granted to the assessee, M/s Carrier Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Ltd. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the ITAT had contravened the second proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Act by allowing the stay to exceed 365 days, and whether the ITAT's order should be considered void ab initio in light of the third proviso to the same section, which stipulates that a stay stands vacated after 365 days irrespective of the reason for delay in appeal disposal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Hon'ble 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 expiry of a period of 365 days, even if delay in disposal of appeal is not attributable to the assessee? Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The revenue argued that the ITAT's order contravened Section 254(2A) of the Act by exceeding the 365-day limit for stay, rendering the 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 No. 117 of 2017(O&M) 1 112 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 117 of 2017(O&M)

Date of decision : 28.03.2017 The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon ....... Petitioner versus M/s Carrier Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Ltd. ....... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN Present: Mr. Tejinder K.Joshi, Advocate for the appellant-revenue. *** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) This appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(in short 'the Act') against the order dated 05.08.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, “FRIDAY”, New Delhi, claiming 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 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.?” Sunita Nagpal 2017.03.30 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity y of this document Chandigarh

ITA No. 117 of 2017(O&M) 2 2. It was not disputed by 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 No. 5 of 2016 decided on 25.04.2016, whereby identical question as claimed in the present appeal, has been held not to be substantial question of law. 3. For the reasons recorded in the aforementioned appeal, the present appeal is dismissed. ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE ( RAMENDRA JAIN ) JUDGE March 28, 2017 sunita Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Sunita Nagpal 2017.03.30 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity y of this document Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →