PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SUGAM VANIJAYE HOLDINGS

ITA/462/2019HC DelhiDLHC01021534201903 December 2019Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue regarding the power of the Tribunal to extend a stay beyond one year, despite the second proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, has already been answered by this Court in Pepsi Foods Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr., 2015 376 ITR 87. Furthermore, the Court was informed that the substantial appeal before the ITAT has already been decided against the Revenue. In light of these two factors, the High Court concluded that no question of law arises for its consideration. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue), filed an appeal against an order dated 08.02.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). This order extended a stay that had been granted in favour of the respondent assessee, Sugam Vanijaye Holdings. The appeal challenges the ITAT's power to extend the stay beyond one year. The Revenue's appeal to the High Court is based on this challenge. The High Court notes that the substantial appeal before the ITAT has already been decided against the Revenue.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has the power to extend a stay granted to an assessee beyond the period of one year, notwithstanding the second proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. However, the fact that the stay was extended implies the assessee argued for its continuation. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that the ITAT lacked the power to extend the stay beyond one year, as per the second proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act. The appeal is filed to assail the order extending the stay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 254(2A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~2. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 462/2019

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Deepak Anand and Mr. Vipul Agarwal, Advocates.

versus

SUGAM VANIJAYE HOLDINGS

..... Respondent Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh Ajmani and Ms.Pratishtha Singh, Advocates.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI

O R D E R % 03.12.2019

The appellant has preferred the present appeal to assail the order dated 08.02.2019, whereby the stay granted in favour of the respondent assessee has been extended beyond the period of one year.

This Court has already answered the issue raised by the appellant with regard to the power of the Tribunal to extend the stay beyond the period of one year in Pepsi Foods Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr., 2015 376 ITR 87, despite the second proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act.

Moreover, we are informed that the substantial appeal already stands decided against the Revenue.

In view of the aforesaid, no question of law arises for our

consideration. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

VIPIN SANGHI, J

REKHA PALLI, J DECEMBER 03, 2019 B.S.Rohella

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →