PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GURGAON vs. M/S AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES (INTERNATIONAL) PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/256/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117454201719 July 2017Bench: MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA,MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

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 its own prior decision 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 precedent, an identical question as raised in the present appeal was held not to constitute a substantial question of law. Consequently, for the reasons recorded in the aforementioned appeal, the present appeal was dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 30.09.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench. The appeal challenged the ITAT's decision concerning the duration of a stay granted. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the ITAT had contravened the Second Proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Act by exceeding a 365-day stay period, and whether the ITAT's order should be considered void-ab-initio due to this exceedance, even if the delay was not attributable to the assessee. The amount in dispute was not specified.

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 (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 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 the Second Proviso of Section 254(2A) by exceeding the 365-day stay period and that the order should be void-ab-initio as per the Third Proviso to Section 254(2A), irrespective of the cause of 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. 256 of 2017 (O&M) Decided on : 19.07.2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon . . . Appellant Versus Agilent Technologies (International) Pvt. LTd. . . . Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL PRESENT: 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 30.09.2016 (Annexure A-2), passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'Friday', 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 Jawala Ram 2017.07.20 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

ITA No. 256 of 2017 (O&M) - 2 - 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 19, 2017 JUDGE J.Ram

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No Jawala Ram 2017.07.20 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →