Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Gurgaon v. M/S Carrier Airconditioning And Refrigeration Limited —Decided On 25.04.2016, Whereby

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH ITA-168-2017 (O&M)Date of decision: 11.05.2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon ..... Appellant 4 ,&0& Atotech India Ltd. ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTALHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU Present:-Mr. Tajinder K. Joshi, Senior Standing Counselfor the appellant-Revenue. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (QRAL) 1This appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961(in short ‘the Act’) against the order dated 12.07.2016 passedby the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Friday Bench, New Delhi, claimingfollowing substantial questions of law:- “| Whether the Hon'ble ITAT has acted incontravention to the Second Proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the combinedperiod of stay has exceeded 3605 days2 Whether the order of the [TAT be treated as Void-ab-initio in light of Third Proviso to Section 254(2A)of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which provides thatstay of demand stands vacated after expiry of aperiod of 365days, even if delay in disposal ofappeal is not attributable to the assessee.>? ? It was not disputed by learned counsel for the appellant- revenue that the matter in issue is no longerres integraand standsconcluded by the decision of this Court in .ITA No. 5 of 2016, titled as Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon vs. M/s Carrier AirConditioning and Refrigeration Limited —decided on 25.04.2016, whereby identical question as claimed in the present appeal, has been held not to be substantial question of law. ITA-168-2017. ~)- 3For the reasons recorded in the aforementioned appeal, thepresent appeal is dismissed, (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL )JUDGE May 11, 2017dinesh (HARINDER SINGH SIDHU)JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/NoWhether Reportable Yes/No