THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA vs. HPCL MITTAL ENERGY LTD. VILL. PHULLO KHARI, TALWANDI SABOO, BATHINDA (PAN: AABCG5231F)

PDF · subscribers
ITA/471/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117690201714 February 2018Bench: MR. JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the appeal by directing the President of the ITAT to forthwith nominate a third member, if not already nominated, and to request him to dispose of the matter expeditiously. The Court noted that the revenue had not made any formal application to the Tribunal for the nomination of the third member. The Court expressed confidence that if the Tribunal's attention was drawn to the facts, the President would take necessary action. The Court did not decide the merits of the stay or the underlying appeal, but rather addressed the procedural delay. The operative direction is to expedite the resolution of the matter by the ITAT. No specific issue was left undecided, as the Court's focus was on the procedural aspect of the delay.

What were the facts?

This appeal by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda (the revenue) challenges an order dated 25.01.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT's order extended a stay granted to HPCL Mittal Energy Ltd. (the assessee) concerning assessment year 2009-2010. The primary contention of the revenue is that the ITAT has continuously extended the stay without deciding the appeal. The revenue points to a previous ITAT order dated 14.09.2015, which indicated the appeal was heard and the order was 'under pronouncement'. However, a difference of opinion between the ITAT members necessitated a reference to a third member, who had not been nominated since then. The revenue acknowledges not having formally applied to the Tribunal for the nomination of the third member.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT erred in extending the stay granted to the assessee for assessment year 2009-2010 without deciding the appeal, thereby causing undue delay. (Question of law and fact) The assessee's arguments are not recorded in the judgment. The revenue argued that the ITAT had indicated the appeal was heard and orders were to be pronounced in its order dated 14.09.2015. The revenue's main grievance is the continued extension of the stay without final adjudication, particularly after the matter was referred to a third member due to a difference of opinion between the original members. The revenue contended that the delay in nominating the third member was causing prejudice.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

ITA-471-2017 (O&M) Date of decision:- 14.02.2018

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda

...Appellant Versus

HPCL Mittal Energy Ltd. ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, CHIEF JUSTICE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

Present:- Mr. Denesh Goyal, Advocate,

for the appellant.

* * * * S.J. VAZIFDAR, C.J. (ORAL)

This is an appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 25.01.2017 extending a stay in the appeal filed by the respondent/assessee. The matter pertains to the assessment year 2009-2010. 2.

The main grievance is that although the stay has been continued from time to time, the matter itself has not been decided by the Tribunal. Mr. Goyal invites our attention to an order dated 14.09.2015 disposing of the appellant’s applications for vacating the stay on the ground that the appeal had been heard and that the order was “under pronouncement”. It appears that there was a difference of opinion between the members of the Tribunal and the matter, therefore, had to be referred to a third member. Mr. Goyal’s grievance is that the third member has not even been nominated since the pronouncement of the order. However, the appellant has also not made any application to the Tribunal for the same. We have no doubt that if the attention of the Amodh Sharma 2018.02.16 15:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

ITA-471-2017 (O&M)

2 Tribunal is invited to the facts, the President of the Tribunal will forthwith nominate the third member, if not already nominated and request him to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible in view of the issue involved as well as in view of the amount involved. 3.

The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

(S.J. VAZIFDAR) CHIEF JUSTICE

(AVNEESH JHINGAN) JUDGE 14.02.2018 Amodh Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

Amodh Sharma 2018.02.16 15:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →