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

PDF · subscribers
ITA/242/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117439201717 July 2017Bench: MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA,MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA2 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 raised was no longer res integra and had been concluded by a previous decision of the same 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, identical questions of law had been held not to be substantial questions 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 present appeal. The specific reasoning from the cited precedent would have addressed the interpretation of Section 254(2A) regarding the duration of stay and its consequences.

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 12.08.2016 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 BMW India Pvt. Ltd. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the ITAT had contravened the provisions of Section 254(2A) of the Act by allowing the stay to exceed 365 days. The procedural history indicates that the Revenue is aggrieved by the ITAT's order which presumably allowed the stay beyond the statutory period.

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. (Question of law) 2. Whether the Hon'ble ITAT order 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 had 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, specifically the Second and Third Provisos.

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. 242 of 2017 (O&M) Decided on : 17.07.2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon . . . Appellant Versus M/s BMW India Pvt. Ltd. . . . Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL PRESENT: Mr. Arun Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Sr. Standing Counsel 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 12.08.2016 (Annexure A-2), passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench '1-2', 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- Jawala Ram 2017.07.18 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

ITA No. 242 of 2017 (O&M) - 2 - 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 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 (AMIT RAWAL) July 17, 2017 JUDGE J.Ram

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No Jawala Ram 2017.07.18 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →