SAHARA INDIA vs. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH & ORS.

W.P.(C)-9868/2026HC Delhi30 September 20268 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

The petitioners, Sahara India and Sahara India Financial Corporation Ltd., filed writ petitions challenging orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench. The ITAT had held that the appeals were not maintainable before the Delhi Bench, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/S ABC Papers Limited. The petitioners argued that since the orders impugned before the ITAT were passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeal) (CIT(A)) in Delhi, the appeals should be maintainable in Delhi. The Revenue also agreed that the appeals should be heard in Delhi. The High Court noted that the original assessment was in Lucknow, but jurisdiction was transferred to CIT(A), Delhi, by an order dated 04.04.2006. The High Court also referred to its previous order in similar cases involving the same group of companies.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the ITAT, Delhi Bench, had erred in rejecting the appeals solely on the grounds of territorial jurisdiction. While technically, the place of business and the Assessing Officer's location in Lucknow might suggest jurisdiction for the Lucknow Bench, the High Court took a holistic and pragmatic view. It emphasized that the appeals had been transferred to the Delhi Bench by an administrative order of the President of the Tribunal, and both the assessee and the Revenue had jointly submitted that they preferred the appeals to be heard in Delhi. The Court found the ITAT's reliance on the ABC Papers Limited judgment to be misplaced in the context of administrative transfers. The Court set aside the impugned orders of the ITAT, restored the appeals to the Delhi Bench, and directed that the Delhi Bench should decide the appeals on merits. The Court also clarified that any appeals filed at the Lucknow Bench as a sequel to previous orders would remain deferred and would be closed by the Lucknow Bench upon final disposal by the Delhi Bench. The Court explicitly stated that this order was passed in peculiar facts and would not be treated as a precedent.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, has territorial jurisdiction to hear appeals when the original assessment was made by an Assessing Officer in Lucknow, even if the appellate order under challenge was passed by the CIT(A) in Delhi and the President of the Tribunal had transferred the appeals to the Delhi Bench. Assessee's Contention: The appeals are maintainable before the Delhi Bench of the ITAT because the impugned orders were passed by the CIT(A) in Delhi. Furthermore, both the assessee and the Revenue had requested the Tribunal to hear the appeals at Delhi. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue agreed that the appeals should be heard by the Tribunal at Delhi. 2. Whether the ITAT, Delhi Bench, erred in rejecting appeals on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, despite the appeals having been transferred by an administrative order of the President of the Tribunal and both parties agreeing to their hearing in Delhi. Assessee's Contention: The ITAT's rejection of appeals based on territorial jurisdiction was erroneous, especially when the President of the Tribunal had transferred the appeals to the Delhi Bench. The reliance on the ABC Papers Limited judgment by the ITAT was misplaced as that case dealt with appellate jurisdiction under Section 260A, not the administrative transfer of appeals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 120,Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (9 matters)

W.P.(C) 9868/2026
W.P.(C) 10506/2026
W.P.(C) 10556/2026
W.P.(C) 9869/2026
W.P.(C) 9870/2026
W.P.(C) 9871/2026
W.P.(C) 9872/2026
W.P.(C) 9873/2026
W.P.(C) 9874/2026

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

W.P.(C) 9868/2026 and connected matters $~3 to 11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 30th September, 2026 # CNR No. DLHC010315292026 + W.P.(C) 9868/2026, CM APPL. 45930/2026, CM APPL. 45931/2026 # CNR No. DLHC010336572026 + W.P.(C) 10506/2026, CM APPL. 48614/2026, CM APPL. 48615/2026 # CNR No. DLHC010338182026 + W.P.(C) 10556/2026, CM APPL. 48890/2026, CM APPL. 48891/2026 # CNR No. DLHC010314252026 + W.P.(C) 9869/2026, CM APPL. 45932/2026, CM APPL. 45933/2026 # CNR No. DLHC010315222026 + W.P.(C) 9870/2026, CM APPL. 45934/2026, CM APPL. 45935/2026 # CNR No. DLHC010314322026 + W.P.(C) 9871/2026, CM APPL. 45936/2026, CM APPL. 45937/2026 # CNR No. DLHC010315252026 + W.P.(C) 9872/2026, CM APPL. 45938/2026, CM APPL. 45939/2026 # CNR No. DLHC010314372026 + W.P.(C) 9873/2026, CM APPL. 45940/2026, CM APPL. 45941/2026 # CNR No. DLHC010314392026 + W.P.(C) 9874/2026, CM APPL. 45942/2026, CM APPL. 45943/2026

SAHARA INDIA SAHARA INDIA FINANCIAL CORPORATION LTD

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 120

All 181 judgments and leading authorities on Section 120 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →