2017 (7) TMI 1300 - HC - Income Tax

Stay of demand exceeding 365 days - HELD THAT - It was not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant revenue that the matter in issue is no longer res integra and stands concluded by the decision of this Court in M/S CARRIER AIR CONDITIONING AND REFRIGERATION LIMITED 2016 (5) TMI 396 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT wherever the appeal could not be decided by the Tribunal due to pressure of pendency of cases and the delay in disposal of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee in any manner, the interim protection can continue beyond 365 days in deserving cases.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding the period of stay exceeding 365 days.
2. Application of the Third Proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the validity of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appellant raised substantial questions of law regarding the Tribunal's actions in relation to the period of stay exceeding 365 days. The appellant argued that the Tribunal contravened the Second Proviso of Section 254(2A) by allowing the combined period of stay to exceed the specified duration. However, it was acknowledged by the appellant's counsel that a previous decision of the Court had already addressed and concluded this issue, rendering it non-substantial.

2. The Court referred to a previous case, "Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon Vs. M/s Carrier Air Conditioning and Refigeration Ltd.," where a similar question was addressed and deemed not to be a substantial question of law. The Court noted that the matter at hand was no longer open for debate as it had been settled in the aforementioned case. Consequently, based on the precedent set by the earlier decision, the Court dismissed the present appeal. The judgment highlighted that the issue in question had already been adjudicated upon and was not considered a substantial legal question.

Overall, the Court's decision was based on the interpretation of relevant sections of the Income Tax Act and the application of precedents set in previous cases. The judgment emphasized the importance of legal consistency and adherence to established rulings in determining the outcome of the present appeal.