THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FARIDABAD vs. M/S WILLIS TOWERS WATSON INDIA PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/48/2022HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01004922202220 January 2023Bench: MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI,MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad. The dismissal was based on the reasoning that the appeal did not involve a substantial question of law. This conclusion was drawn by the Court by referring to its own previous judgment dated 27.03.2019 in ITA No.495 of 2018. That judgment had interpreted Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and held that a combined period of stay exceeding 365 days would not constitute a substantial question of law. The High Court applied this precedent to the present case, implicitly finding that the circumstances of the appeal, as presented or understood in light of the cited precedent, did not meet the threshold for a substantial question of law required for an appeal under Section 260A. No specific findings were made on the merits of the ITAT's order dated 28.10.2020.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad (Revenue) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench dated 28.10.2020. The ITAT's order pertained to assessment year 2014-15 and was passed in ITA No.7230/Del/2018. The High Court was considering the appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue's counsel referred to a previous judgment of the High Court dated 27.03.2019 in ITA No.495 of 2018, which in turn referred to an order dated 25.04.2016 in ITA-5 of 2016. The core of the reference was an observation regarding Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning the combined period of stay exceeding 365 days not amounting to a substantial question of law.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, involves a substantial question of law, considering the provisions of Section 254(2A) of the Act, in light of the combined period of stay exceeding 365 days. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee, M/s. Willis Towers Watson India Pvt. Ltd. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its learned counsel, relied on a previous judgment of the High Court dated 27.03.2019 in ITA No.495 of 2018. This judgment had observed that under Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, a combined period of stay exceeding 365 days would not constitute a substantial question of law. This precedent was cited to argue that the present appeal, if it involved such a scenario, might not qualify for admission.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 254(2A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

107 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

ITA No.48 of 2022 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.01.2023

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad.

..…... Appellant V/s.

M/s. Willis Towers Watson India Pvt. Ltd.

….....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Present: Ms. Pridhi Jaswiner Sandhu, Standing counsel

for Income Tax Department-appellant.

***

Ritu Bahri, J (Oral)

This appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘I-2’ dated 28.10.2020 passed in ITA No.7230/Del/2018 for the assessment year 2014-15.

Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to a judgment dated 27.03.2019 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in ITA No.495 of 2018 wherein order dated 25.04.2016 in ITA-5 of 2016 was referred to, and observed that under Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, combined period of stay exceeding 365 days, will not amount to substantial question of law.

In view of above, the appeal is dismissed.

(RITU BAHRI)

JUDGE

20th January, 2023

(MANISHA BATRA) Sonia Puri

JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable

: Yes/No SONIA PURI 2023.01.24 15:49

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →