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

PDF · subscribers

ITA/176/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117365201728 April 2017Bench: MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA,MRS JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeal was not maintainable as a substantial question of law. The Court noted that it was not disputed by the revenue's counsel that the matter in issue was no longer res integra and had been concluded by a previous decision of the same Court in ITA No. 5 of 2016, decided on 25.04.2016. 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 aforementioned appeal, the present appeal 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 05.08.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench. The appeal was filed against the ITAT's order concerning Jindal Steel & Power Limited, Hisar (the assessee). The revenue challenged the ITAT's decision based on two substantial questions of law related to the duration of a stay granted by the ITAT and its potential void ab initio status under Section 254(2A) of the Act. The revenue did not dispute that the issue was already decided by the High Court in a previous identical case.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Hon'ble ITAT has acted in contravention to the Second Proviso to 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's order was in contravention of the Second Proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Act due to the stay exceeding 365 days, and that the order should be treated as void ab initio under the Third Proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 254(2A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

-1- ITA No.176 of 2017 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.176 of 2017 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.04.2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon

....Petitioner Versus Jindal Steel & Power Limited, Hisar ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN

Present: - Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Sr. Standing Counsel, 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, 'G', New Delhi, claiming following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether the Hon'ble ITAT has acted in contravention to the Second Proviso to 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.?” 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, Ravinder Singh 2017.05.01 11:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

-2- ITA No.176 of 2017 (O&M) 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) April 28, 2017 JUDGE R.S. Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Ravinder Singh 2017.05.01 11:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →