PR . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL),GURGAON vs. SH.SUDHIR DHINGRA,F-25, RADHE MOHAN DRIVE, VILL.FATEHPUR, BENGADAIPUR, MEHRAULI,NEW DELHI.

PDF · subscribers

ITA/461/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117681201712 February 2018Author: MR. JUSTICE M.M. AGGARWAL,LOK ADALAT BENCH - 32 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. This decision was based on a prior judgment of a Division Bench of the same Court in ITA-44-2005 titled The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad Vs M/s Motorola India Ltd. The Court acknowledged the appellant's predicament regarding jurisdictional issues with the Delhi High Court but stated that the decision on whether to appeal to the Supreme Court was for the appellant to make. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed solely on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. No decision was made on the merits of the additions or deletions made by the lower authorities.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Gurgaon (appellant) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated 03.04.2017. The ITAT had dismissed the appellant's appeal against the order of the CIT (Appeals) dated 07.07.2006. The CIT (Appeals) had allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting certain additions made by the Assessing Officer. The assessment pertained to the block period 01.04.1990 to 20.08.2000. The High Court noted that the appellant's counsel conceded that the Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, citing a previous Division Bench judgment of the same Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, considering the judgment in The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad Vs M/s Motorola India Ltd. (ITA-44-2005)? The appellant argued that in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in ITA-44-2005, the Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The appellant further stated that a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs AAR Bee Industries (2013) 262 CTR 0001 (Del) has disagreed with the view taken by this Court, creating a jurisdictional dilemma where filing in the Delhi High Court would also result in dismissal for want of territorial jurisdiction. The appellant expressed a desire to appeal to the Supreme Court. The revenue's contentions were not recorded.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

ITA-461-2017 (O&M) Date of decision:- 12.02.2018

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Gurgaon

...Appellant Versus

Sudhir Dhingra ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, CHIEF JUSTICE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

Present:- Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Advocate,

for the appellant. * * * * S.J. VAZIFDAR, C.J. (ORAL)

This is an appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 03.04.2017 dismissing the appellant’s appeal against the order of the CIT (Appeals) dated 07.07.2006. The CIT (Appeals) allowed the assessee’s appeal whereby certain additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted. The matter pertains to the block period 01.04.1990 to 20.08.2000. 2. Mr. Sethi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, fairly states that in view of the judgement dated 03.10.2007 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in ITA-44-2005 titled as The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad Vs M/s Motorola India Ltd., this Court lacks territorial 2018.02.12 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

ITA-461-2017 (O&M)

2 appeal is filed in the Delhi High Court, the same would be dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction.

The appellant, therefore, wishes to carry this matter in appeal to the Supreme Court. That is for the appellant to decide.

In view of the aforesaid judgement of this Court, the appeal is dismissed only on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.

The original file be returned to the appellant.

(S.J. VAZIFDAR) CHIEF JUSTICE

(AVNEESH JHINGAN) JUDGE 12.02.2018 Amodh Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No Amodh Sharma 2018.02.12 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →