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

PDF · subscribers
ITA/301/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117505201730 August 2017Bench: MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA,MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal. It 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 were held not to be substantial questions of law. Therefore, for the reasons recorded in that earlier decision, the present appeal was dismissed. The Court did not independently analyze the provisions of Section 254(2A) or the merits of the stay duration in this specific case, relying solely on the precedent. No issue was left undecided; the appeal was disposed of on the basis of prior ruling.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon (the revenue) against an order dated 30.09.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai Bench “K”. The appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee is Towers Watson India Private Limited. The core of the dispute revolves around the ITAT's order concerning the duration of a stay granted by the Tribunal. The revenue's contention is that the ITAT contravened the Second Proviso of Section 254(2A) of the Act by allowing the stay to exceed 365 days, and that the order should be treated as 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. The revenue argues that the ITAT exceeded the statutory limit for stay, thus violating the provisions of Section 254(2A). 2. Whether the Hon'ble 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. The revenue contends that due to the exceeding of the 365-day period, the ITAT's order granting the stay is void from the beginning, irrespective of who caused the delay. The judgment records no arguments for the assessee.

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. 301 of 2017 (O&M) Decided on : 30.08.2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon . . . Appellant Versus Towers Watson India Private Limited . . . 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-5), passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench “K”, Mumbai, 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 2017.09.04 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

ITA No. 301 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 questions as claimed in the present appeal, have been held not to be substantial questions of law. 3. For the reasons recorded in the aforementioned appeal, the present appeal is dismissed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (AMIT RAWAL) August 30, 2017 JUDGE J.Ram

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No Jawala Ram 2017.09.04 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →