PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GURGAON vs. M/S MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PVT. LTD.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held 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 titled as The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon Versus M/s Carrier Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Limited, decided on 25.04.2016. In that precedent, an identical question had been held not to be a substantial question of law. Consequently, for the reasons recorded in the aforementioned appeal, the present appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed. The Court did not provide a separate finding or reasoning for each of the two questions raised, as it relied on the binding precedent. The ratio decidendi is that appeals raising questions concerning the interpretation of provisos to Section 254(2A) regarding stay periods, when identical issues have already been decided by the High Court as not constituting substantial questions of law, are liable to be 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 11.11.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench. The appeal was filed against M/s Mitsubishi Electric Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. (the assessee). The core of the dispute revolved around the interpretation of the second and third provisos to Section 254(2A) of the Act concerning the duration of stay granted by the ITAT and its impact on the validity of the order. The revenue contended that the combined period of stay had exceeded 365 days, rendering the ITAT's order void ab initio.
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? Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. The assessee is referred to as the respondent. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue argued that the ITAT's order was in contravention of the second proviso to Section 254(2A) as the stay period exceeded 365 days. They further contended that the order should be treated as void ab initio based on the third proviso to Section 254(2A), which stipulates that a stay of demand stands vacated after 365 days, irrespective of the cause of delay in appeal disposal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 241 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.07.2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon .......Appellant Versus M/s Mitsubishi Electric Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN 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 11.11.2016 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?'' 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 titled as Reema Saini 2017.07.18 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh
ITA No. 241 of 2017 (O&M) -2- The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon Versus M/s Carrier Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Limited, 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 (AVNEESH JHINGAN) 14.07.2017 JUDGE reema Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No Reema Saini 2017.07.18 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
