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

PDF · subscribers
ITA/305/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117509201729 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 filed by the Revenue. The Court noted that it was not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant-revenue that the matter in issue was no longer res integra and stood concluded by a previous decision of the same Court. In ITA No.5 of 2016, titled Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon vs. M/s Carrier Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Limited, decided on 25.04.2016, identical questions of law as raised in the present appeal were 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 consequently dismissed the appeal. No specific finding was given on the merits of the ITAT's order regarding the stay, as the appeal was dismissed on the preliminary ground that no substantial question of law arose.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 23.12.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench. The appeal challenged the ITAT's order concerning a stay granted to the assessee, Agilent Technologies (International) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon. The core of the dispute revolved around the duration of the stay granted by the ITAT and its implications under Section 254(2A) of the Act. The procedural history relevant to the appeal concerns the ITAT's order and the subsequent challenge by the Revenue.

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 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 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's order granting stay contravened the second Proviso to Section 254(2A) as the stay exceeded 365 days. They further contended that the order should be treated as void ab initio under the Third Proviso to Section 254(2A) due to the expiry of the 365-day period for the stay, irrespective of the cause of delay in appeal disposal. The Revenue relied on the principle that statutory provisions regarding stay periods must be adhered to.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 254(2A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No.305 of 2017 (O&M) {1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.305 of 2017 (O&M) Date of decision:29.08.2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon ... Appellant Vs. Agilent Technologies (International) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL Present:- Mr. Tejinder K. Joshi, Advocate for the appellant-Revenue. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL J. (ORAL) 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(in short 'the Act') against the order dated 23.12.2016 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?” Savita 2017.09.01 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

ITA No.305 of 2017 (O&M) {2} 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 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon vs. M/s Carrier Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Limited, 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)

JUDGE August 29, 2017 savita Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Savita 2017.09.01 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →