PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9 vs. M/S VERTEX CUSTOMER SERVICES PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/416/2017HC DelhiDLHC01221442201723 May 2017Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the question of law urged by the Revenue had already been answered against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee by a previous decision of the same Court in Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2015) 376 ITR 87. Consequently, the Court found that no substantial question of law arose for consideration in the present appeal. The appeal was therefore dismissed. No specific findings were made on the merits of the ITAT's order itself, as the appeal was disposed of on the preliminary issue of substantial question of law.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-9 (the Revenue) filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated August 19, 2016. The ITAT's order was in ITA No.1508/Del/2015, concerning M/s Vertex Customer Services Pvt. Ltd. (the Assessee). The appeal was filed with a delay, which the High Court condoned. The core of the Revenue's challenge pertains to the legality of an extended stay granted by the ITAT in favour of the Assessee, arguing it contravened Section 254(2A) of the Act. The Assessee was represented by no one before the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the extension of stay granted by the ITAT in favour of the Assessee beyond 365 days was in contravention of Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? The Revenue contended that the ITAT's extension of stay beyond the statutory period of 365 days was illegal and in contravention of Section 254(2A) of the Act. The Revenue relied on the provisions of Section 254(2A) to support its argument. The Assessee did not present any arguments before the High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 254(2A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cited by 8 judgments on BharatTax

See all citing judgments →

Counted from the text of the judgments hosted here. Most recent first.

ITA 416/2017

Page 1 of 2

$~48. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +

ITA 416/2017

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9 ..... Appellant

Through: Mr.Zoheb Hossain, Advocate.

Versus

M/S VERTEX CUSTOMER SERVICES PVT. LTD.

..... Respondent

Through: None.

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VINOD GOEL

O R D E R %

23.05.2017 C.M.No.19830/2017 (Delay in filing)

1.

For the reasons explained in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application is disposed of.

ITA No.416/2017

2.

This is an appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act (‘the Act’) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated 19th August, 2016 in ITA No.1508/Del/2015.

3.

The question urged by the Revenue in this appeal concerns the legality of the extension of stay granted by the ITAT in favour of the Respondent Assessee beyond 365 days and whether it was in contravention of Section

ITA 416/2017

Page 2 of 2

254 (2A) of the Act.

4.

The said question stands answered against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee by the decision of this Court in Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2015) 376 ITR 87.

5.

No substantial question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed.

S.MURALIDHAR, J

VINOD GOEL, J MAY 23, 2017 ‘anb’

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →