COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - VI vs. VODAFONE ESSAR SOUTH LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 422 / 2013HC Delhi21 August 20131 pages
For Petitioner: AMOL SINHA
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Commissioner of Income Tax was not justified in invoking jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This finding was based on the prior decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) which had set aside the CIT's Section 263 order. The Delhi High Court, in ITA No. 119/2012, had affirmed the ITAT's decision. Therefore, as the foundation of the AO's order (the Section 263 order) was found to be invalid, the present appeal, which arose from the AO's consequential order, had to be dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The appeal concerns the assessment year(s) not explicitly stated. The appellant is the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) - VI, and the respondent is Vodafone Essar South Ltd. The challenge is to an order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) pursuant to a Section 263 order by the CIT. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) had previously set aside the CIT's order under Section 263. Subsequently, the Delhi High Court, in ITA No. 119/2012, affirmed the ITAT's decision, holding that the CIT was not justified in invoking jurisdiction under Section 263. The present appeal arises from the AO's order passed after the CIT's Section 263 order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax was justified in invoking jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant (CIT) contended that the CIT had rightly invoked Section 263. The respondent (assessee) argued that the CIT's order under Section 263 was not sustainable. The judgment notes that the ITAT had set aside the Section 263 order, and the Delhi High Court affirmed this decision, finding the CIT's invocation of Section 263 unjustified. The present appeal stems from the AO's subsequent order, which was based on the now-overturned Section 263 order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . ITA 422/2013 . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ? VI ..... Appellant . Through Advocate (appearance not given) . . . versus . . . VODAFONE ESSAR SOUTH LTD. ..... Respondent . Through Mr. Salil Kapoor with Mr. Vikas Jain, Advocate. . . . CORAM: . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA . O R D E R . 21.08.2013 . . . Learned counsel for the appellant accepts that the order passed under Section 263 dated 30.03.3009 was set aside by the ITAT and the Delhi High Court in ITA No.119/2012 has affirmed the decision of the ITAT. In nutshell, it has been held that the Commissioner of Income Tax was not justified and had not rightly invoked jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax, 1961. . The present appeal arises out of the order passed by the Assessing Officer pursuant to the order under Section 263 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax. . . . The present appeal, in view of the aforesaid factual position, has to be dismissed. It is, accordingly, dismissed. . . . . . . . SANJIV KHANNA, J . . . . . . . SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J . AUGUST 21, 2013 . st . . . $ 41 .

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →