MIS ALTA VISTA INFO SOLUTIONS PVT LTD & ANR. vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/3367/2023HC DelhiDLHC01009236202320 May 2025Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the petitioners' contention of having no connection with Shri Pavel Garg was insubstantial, given that he is a director of the petitioner companies, signed their returns and board resolutions, and supported the present petition with an affidavit. The court also noted that the petitioners have a factory in Sonipat, Haryana. The centralization of assessment with DCIT/ACIT (Central), Circle-01, Faridabad was found to be in accordance with the Office Order dated 31.10.2014, which assigns jurisdiction for the State of Haryana to the Faridabad authorities. The court found that the impugned orders clearly stated the reason for centralization as being for the purpose of coordinated investigation and assessment proceedings, stemming from the search and seizure operations conducted in the case of Shri Pavel Garg and others. The court found no infirmity with the impugned orders.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, M/s Alta Vista Info Solutions Pvt Ltd and another, filed a writ petition challenging orders dated 07.11.2022 passed under Section 127(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. These orders centralized their assessments with the DCIT/ACIT (Central), Circle-01, Faridabad. The petitioners argued that their registered office is in New Delhi, causing inconvenience, and they have no establishment or connection with Faridabad. They also claimed no relation to Shri Pavel Garg, in whose case a search and seizure operation under Section 132 was conducted on 29.06.2022, which led to the centralization. The Revenue contended that Shri Pavel Garg is a director of the petitioner companies, signed their tax returns and board resolutions, and the petitioners have a unit in Sonipat, Haryana. The Revenue also presented an office order dated 31.10.2014 detailing jurisdictional assignments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the centralization of assessment with an income tax authority outside the jurisdiction of the petitioners' registered office (New Delhi) is valid, considering the alleged inconvenience and lack of establishment in Faridabad? (Question of law and fact, concerning jurisdiction and convenience under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). 2. Whether the impugned orders adequately provide reasons for the transfer of jurisdiction to Faridabad, particularly in light of the search and seizure operation in the case of Shri Pavel Garg and the petitioners' alleged lack of connection with him? (Question of law and fact, concerning reasons for transfer under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contentions: The transfer of jurisdiction to Faridabad causes inconvenience as the petitioners' establishments are in New Delhi. They have no establishment or connection with Faridabad. The centralization is based on a search in the case of Shri Pavel Garg, with whom the petitioners have no relationship. Revenue's contentions: Shri Pavel Garg is a director of the petitioner companies, signed their returns and board resolutions, and the petition is supported by his affidavit, establishing a connection. The petitioners also have a factory in Sonipat, Haryana. The centralization is in accordance with the office order dated 31.10.2014, assigning jurisdiction for Haryana to Faridabad authorities. The impugned orders clearly state the reason for centralization as coordinated investigation and assessment proceedings due to the search in Shri Pavel Garg's case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 127,Section 132

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

W.P. (C) 3367/2023 Page 1 of 4

$~44 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision : 20.05.2025

+ W.P.(C) 3367/2023 and CM APPL.13060/2023

M/S ALTA VISTA INFO SOLUTIONS PVT LTD & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr Shiv Charan Garg, Ms Jahanavi Garg and Mr Imran Khan, Advocates.

versus

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....Respondent Through: Mr Vipul Aggarwal, SSC, Mr Akshat Singh, Ms Sakshi Shairwal, JSCs and Mr Gaoraang Ranjan, Advocates.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

VIBHU BAKHRU, J. (ORAL)

1.

The petitioners have filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning identical orders dated 07.11.2022 [impugned orders] passed under Section 127(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] whereby the assessment in the case of the petitioners was centralised with DCIT/ACIT (Central), Circle-01, Faridabad. 2. The petitioners challenge the centralisation of their assessment with DCIT/ACIT (Central), Circle-01, Faridabad on, essentially, two grounds. Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date:24.05.2025 19:43:59 Signature Not Verified

W.P. (C) 3367/2023 Page 2 of 4

First, that the petitioners’ registered office is located at New Delhi and therefore the jurisdiction cannot be centralised with an income tax authority, that does not exercise jurisdiction in New Delhi. And second, the impugned orders do not indicate any reason for transfer of the jurisdiction to the DCIT/ACIT, Faridabad. 3. Mr Garg, the learned counsel for the petitioners earnestly contends that such transfer of the jurisdiction would cause inconvenience to the petitioners as their respective establishments are in New Delhi. He also submits that the petitioners neither have any establishment nor any connection with Faridabad, therefore, in any event, their assessment cannot be centralised with the said authority. Additionally, he contends that the impugned orders are passed pursuant to the search and seizure operation dated 29.06.2022 conducted under Section 132 of the Act in the case of Shri Pavel Garg and others and the petitioners have no relationship with the said person. 4. The undisputed facts as noted by this court in the order dated 17.03.2023 record that Shri Pavel Garg is the director on the board of directors of the petitioner companies; return of petitioner no.1 for the Assessment Year 2020-21 is also signed by him; the resolution of the board of directors authorising the filing of the present petition is also signed by Pavel Garg; and the present petition is also supported by the affidavit affirmed by Pavel Garg. 5. In the given facts, the contention that the petitioners have no connection with Shri Pavel Garg is clearly, insubstantial. It is also material Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date:24.05.2025 19:43:59 Signature Not Verified

W.P. (C) 3367/2023 Page 3 of 4

to note that the petitioner’s unit is also located at Sonipat, Haryana. Thus, concededly, the petitioners also have a factory in Sonipat, Haryana. 6. Mr Aggarwal, the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue has handed over the copy of the Office Order dated 31.10.2014, which sets out the jurisdiction of the various officials. The relevant extract of the tabular statement setting out the jurisdiction of officers covering the State of Haryana is extracted below: - S. No. Designation Station Range Pr CCIT/ CCIT/ DGIT (Inv) Pr CIT/ Pr DIT/ CIT/DIT

31 1.DCIT/ACIT (Central/Hq) 2. Income Tax Officers (Central/Hq) 3. TRO (Central),Gurgaon Gurgaon

Not applicable

Pr CIT/ CIT (Central), Gurgaon 1.DCIT/ACIT/Central-1, Gurgaon 2. DCIT/ACIT/Central-2, Gurgaon 3. DCIT/ACIT/Central-1, Faridabad 4. DCIT/ACIT/Central-2, Faridabad Gurgaon

Faridabad Addl/Jt CIT (Central) Gurgaon 1. DCIT/ACIT/Central-1, Chandigarh 2. DCIT/ACIT/Central-2, Chandigarh 3. DCIT/ACIT (Central), Karnal 4. DCIT/ACIT(Central), Shimla Chandigarh

Karnal Shimla

Addl/Jt CIT (Central), Chandigarh

7.

Thus, the case of the petitioners has been centralized with the relevant income tax authority as specified in the aforementioned office order. The search was conducted in case of Shri Pavel Garg and other related persons in the State of Haryana, and the petitioners’ case has been centralized in connection with the said search. 8. Insofar as the reason for centralizing the assessments is concerned, the Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date:24.05.2025 19:43:59 Signature Not Verified

W.P. (C) 3367/2023 Page 4 of 4

same is clearly spelt out by the impugned orders. The impugned orders set out that the centralization is being done for the purpose of coordinated investigation and assessment proceedings. The same has been considered expedient on the ground that the search and seizure operations were conducted in the case of Shri Pavel Garg and Others on 29.06.2022 by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department. And, as noted above, the contention that Shri Pavel Garg has no connection with the petitioners is not correct. 9. We find no infirmity with the impugned orders. 10. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The pending application is also disposed of.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

TEJAS KARIA, J MAY 20, 2025 M

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date:24.05.2025 19:43:59 Signature Not Verified

More judgments on Section 127

All 1,067 judgments and leading authorities on Section 127 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →