The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Gurgaon v. M/S Mitsubishi Electric Automotive India Pvt. Ltd., Manesar, Gurgaon

ITA-8523-2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-8523-2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.5.2019 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon Versus ....Appellant. M/s Mitsubishi Electric Automotive India Pvt. Ltd., Manesar, Gurgaon...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN. PRESENT: Mr. Arun Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant.***Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant.*** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1.Delay of 91 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. 2.This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 15.12.2017(Annexure A-4) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DelhiBench: 1-I, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in SA No.707/DEL/2017 IN ITA No. 312/Del/2015, for the assessment year 2010-2011, claiming the following substantial questions of law:- 1.Whether the Hon'ble ITAT has acted incontravention of the Second Proviso of Section254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as thecombined period of stay has been exceeded 365days?contravention of the Second Proviso of Section254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as thecombined period of stay has been exceeded 365days? ITA-8523-2018 2.Whether the order of the ITAT be treated as void-ab-initio in light of Third Proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which providesthat stay of demand stands vacated after expiry of aperiod of 365 days, even if delay in disposal ofappeal is not attributable to the assessee?ab-initio in light of Third Proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which providesthat stay of demand stands vacated after expiry of aperiod of 365 days, even if delay in disposal ofappeal is not attributable to the assessee? 3.We have heard learned counsel for the revenue. 4.It was not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant-revenue that the matter in issue is no longer res integra and standsconcluded by the decision of this Court in ITA-5-2016 decided on25.4.2016 whereby identical question as claimed in the present appeal, hasbeen held not to be substantial question of law. 5.For the reasons recorded in the aforementioned appeal, thepresent appeal is also dismissed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE May 10, 2019gbs (AVNEESH JHINGAN)JUDGE Whether Speaking/ReasonedYes/NoWhether ReportableYes/No