The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Gurgaon v. M/S Bmw India Pvt. Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 242 of 2017 (O&M) Decided on : 17.07.2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon Versus M/s BMW India Pvt. Ltd. . . . Appellant . . . Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTALHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL PRESENT: Mr. Arun Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Sr. Standing Counselfor the appellant. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) The present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), against the order dated 12.08.2016 (Annexure A-2), passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench '1-2', New Delhi, claiming the following substantial questions of law:- “1.Whether the Hon'ble ITAT has acted in contravention of the Second Proviso of Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the combined period of stay has exceeded 365 days. 2.Whether the Hon'ble ITAT be treated as void-ab-initio in light of Third Proviso to Sec 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which provides that stay of demand stands vacated after expiry of a period of 365 days, even if delay in disposal of appeal is not attributable to the assessee.” It was not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant- ITA No. 242 of 2017 (O&M) - 2 - revenue that the matter in issue is no longer res integra and stands concluded by the decision of this Court in ITA No.5 of 2016, titled as “Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon Vs. M/s Carrier AirConditioning and Refigeration Ltd.”,decided on 25.04.2016, whereby, identical question as claimed in the present appeal, has been held not to be substantial question of law. 3.For the reasons recorded in the aforementioned appeal, the present appeal is dismissed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE July 17, 2017 J.Ram (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:Yes/NoWhether Reportable:Yes/No