2019 (6) TMI 248 - HC - Income Tax

Court dismisses revenue's appeal on Income Tax Act interpretation, upholding legal precedent.

The High Court dismissed the revenue's appeal concerning the interpretation of Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court relied on a previous ... 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. Issues involved:1. Interpretation of Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding the duration of stay of demand.2. Validity of the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in light of the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Analysis:Issue 1: Interpretation of Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961The appeal was filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the assessment year 2010-11. The substantial questions of law raised in the appeal pertained to the interpretation of Section 254(2A) of the Act. The first question raised was whether the ITAT contravened the Second Proviso of Section 254(2A) by exceeding the combined period of stay beyond 365 days. The second question raised was about the validity of the ITAT's order under the Third Proviso to Section 254(2A), which states that the stay of demand is vacated after 365 days, even if the delay in the appeal's disposal is not the assessee's fault.Issue 2: Validity of the ITAT's OrderDuring the hearing, the counsel for the revenue acknowledged that the matter in question had already been settled by a previous decision of the Court in a similar case. The Court referred to a previous judgment, ITA-5-2016, where an identical issue was considered and held not to be a substantial question of law. Based on the precedent set in the earlier case, the Court dismissed the present appeal, indicating that the matter was no longer open for debate. Additionally, a separate application was filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, which became irrelevant after the dismissal of the appeal.In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the revenue's appeal based on the precedent set by a previous judgment, emphasizing that the questions raised did not qualify as substantial questions of law. The Court's decision highlights the importance of legal precedents in determining the outcome of similar cases and upholding consistency in legal interpretations.