KAUSHAL KUMAR AGGARWAL vs. THE OFFICER OF INCOME TAX WARD 58(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/14/2023HC DelhiDLHC01000057202223 April 2025Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's contention regarding the lack of jurisdiction. The Court noted that the petitioner had applied for his PAN disclosing a Delhi address, which was then recorded. The petitioner had not taken any steps to update this address or migrate his PAN to a new location, and there is no automatic transfer of jurisdiction when an assessee changes their address. The Court also acknowledged the Revenue's submission that the petitioner's online returns were filed within the jurisdiction of the AO who issued the impugned notice. Therefore, the AO was deemed to have exercised jurisdiction correctly based on the available records and the petitioner's inaction in updating his address.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kaushal Kumar Aggarwal, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated April 5, 2021, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2013-14. The petitioner contended that the Assessing Officer (AO) who issued the notice lacked jurisdiction, as he resides and conducts business in Noida and has consistently filed returns within the Noida Income Tax Authorities' jurisdiction. The Revenue, through an affidavit, stated that the petitioner had applied for a Permanent Account Number (PAN) disclosing an address in Delhi, and this address was recorded. The petitioner had not applied for any change in his recorded address, and there is no automatic procedure for jurisdiction transfer upon an assessee changing their address. The Revenue further submitted that the petitioner's online returns also fell within the jurisdiction of the issuing AO.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Assessing Officer who issued the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, had the jurisdiction to do so, considering the assessee's claimed place of residence and business in Noida versus the address recorded in his PAN application. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the AO lacked jurisdiction because he resides and conducts business in Noida and has always filed returns within the Noida Income Tax Authorities' jurisdiction. The notice was therefore issued by an unauthorized authority. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that the AO had jurisdiction because the petitioner's PAN was issued based on a Delhi address provided by the petitioner, and no steps were taken by the petitioner to change this recorded address. The Revenue also submitted that the petitioner's online returns fell within the jurisdiction of the issuing AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~104 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 14/2023 KAUSHAL KUMAR AGGARWAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sunil Choudhary, Advocate. versus THE OFFICER OF INCOME TAX WARD 58(1), DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, SSC; Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, JSC; Mr. Parth Samwal, JSC with Ms. Nupur Sharma, Mr. Gaurav Singh, Mr. Bhanukaran Singh Jodha, Ms. Muskaan Goel, Mr. Himanshu Gaur, Advocates for Revenue. Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, CGSC with Ms. Aarti Gupta, Ms. Rinki Panwar, Ms. Swati, Advocates for UoI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

O R D E R %

23.04.

2025

1.

The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning a notice dated 05.04.2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] in respect of Assessment Year [AY] 2013-14. 2. It is the petitioner’s case that the said notice has been issued by the Assessing Officer [AO] who does not have jurisdiction in the petitioner’s case. The said contention is premised on the basis that the petitioner resides and carries on his business in Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar-201304. The petitioner claims that he is a constituent partner of a firm named Travel Ex India Services and has been regularly filing his returns within the jurisdiction of Noida Income Tax Authorities. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 00:17:34

3.

The AO has filed an affidavit affirming that he has exercised jurisdiction in relation to the petitioner as the petitioner had applied for Permanent Account Number [PAN], disclosing his address as 206, MJ Shopping Centre, 3 Veer Savarkar Block, Shakarpur, Delhi-110092. Pursuant to the said application, the petitioner was allocated a PAN on 18.09.2002 and the petitioner’s recorded address is as stated by him in his application. It is affirmed that the petitioner did not take any steps for migration of his PAN to his new address and there is no automatic procedure for transfer of jurisdiction, on the assessee changing his address.

4.

Admittedly, the petitioner had not made any application for change in his recorded address and, therefore, the impugned notice has been issued by the AO exercising jurisdiction in Ward-58(1), New Delhi.

5.

Mr. Maratha, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, also submits that all returns filed online by the petitioner also fall within the jurisdiction of the AO who issued the impugned notice, and the contention that any other AO has exercised jurisdiction in the petitioner’s case is erroneous.

6.

In view of the above, we find no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

TEJAS KARIA, J APRIL 23, 2025/sms

Click here to check corrigendum, if any This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 00:17:34

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →