PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GURGAON vs. M/S CORPORATE EXECUTIVE BOARD INDIA PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/208/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117401201715 May 2017Bench: MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA,MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court noted that the issue was no longer res integra and had been concluded by a previous decision of the same High Court in ITA No.5 of 2016, titled 'Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon Vs. M/s Carrier Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Ltd.', decided on 25.04.2016. In that prior judgment, an identical question raised in the present appeal was held not to constitute a substantial question of law. Therefore, following its own precedent, the High Court found no substantial question of law arising from the ITAT's order and dismissed the appeal. No specific findings were made on the merits of the ITAT's order regarding the stay period; the dismissal was based on the lack of a substantial question 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 24.06.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench. The appeal challenged the ITAT's decision concerning the period of stay granted in an appeal before it. The Revenue contended that the ITAT had contravened the Second Proviso of Section 254(2A) of the Act by exceeding the 365-day limit for stay, and that the ITAT's order should be considered void-ab-initio due to this delay, even if not attributable to the assessee.

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 Hon'ble ITAT's order can 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. Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee (CEB India Pvt. Ltd.). Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue argued that the ITAT had contravened the Second Proviso of Section 254(2A) by exceeding the 365-day limit for stay. Consequently, the Revenue contended that the ITAT's order should be treated as void-ab-initio under the Third Proviso to Section 254(2A), as the stay of demand automatically stands vacated after 365 days, irrespective of who caused the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 254(2A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 208 of 2017 (O&M) Decided on : 15.05.2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon . . . Appellant Versus CEB India Pvt. Ltd. . . . Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU PRESENT: Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate for the appellant. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) The present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), against the order dated 24.06.2016 (Annexure A-2), passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, “Friday 'G', New Delhi, 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 exceeded 365 days. 2. Whether the Hon'ble ITAT be treated as void-ab-initio in light of Third Proviso to Sec 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 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 No.5 of 2016, titled as “Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon Vs. M/s Carrier Air Jawala Ram 2017.05.16 15:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

ITA No. 208 of 2017 (O&M) - 2 - Conditioning and Refigeration Ltd.”, 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 (HARINDER SINGH SIDHU) May 15, 2017 JUDGE J.Ram

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No Jawala Ram 2017.05.16 15:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →