COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2 vs. THE LOUIS BERGER GROUP INC.
What did the High Court hold?
The Delhi High Court held that it did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax – I, Chandigarh vs. ABC Papers Limited, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1036, the Court stated that appeals against ITAT decisions lie only before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order is situated. Since the Assessing Officer was based in Hyderabad, the Delhi High Court lacked jurisdiction. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. The appellant was granted liberty to file an appeal in the appropriate court with territorial jurisdiction within twelve weeks, with all rights and contentions of the parties left open.
What were the facts?
The Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2, the appellant (Revenue), filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging an order dated November 29, 2021, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No. 527/Hyd./2016 for Assessment Year 2007-08. The ITAT had quashed proceedings on the grounds that the reasons to believe were not in terms of the first proviso to Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer who passed the assessment orders was based in Hyderabad. The respondent, The Louis Berger Group Inc. (assessee), was not represented before the High Court.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the ITAT erred in quashing the proceedings on the ground that the reasons to believe were not in terms of the first proviso to Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically by holding that the reasons to believe should mention a failure on the part of the assessee to furnish true and full material facts. Contentions: Assessee: Not recorded. Revenue: Contended that the ITAT erred in quashing proceedings on the stated grounds. Argued that there is no legal requirement to mention the assessee's failure to furnish true and full material facts within the reasons to believe, as Section 147 only requires the Assessing Officer to record reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 310/2022 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2 ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Sr.Standing Counsel for the Revenue with Ms.Easha Kadian, Advocate. versus THE LOUIS BERGER GROUP INC. ..... Respondent Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA O R D E R % 08.09.2022 Present income tax appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 29th November, 2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No. 527/Hyd./2016 for the Assessment Year 2007-08. Learned counsel for the Appellant states that the ITAT has erred in quashing the proceedings on the ground that reasons to believe are not in terms of first proviso to Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). He states that the ITAT has erred in holding that reasons to believe should mention that there was failure on part of the assessee to furnish true and full material facts, without considering that there is no such requirement of law to bring the same in reasons to believe, as the provisions of Section 147 of the Act requires that the Assessing Officer should record his reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment. 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 15/06/2026 at 02:27:59
A perusal of the paper book reveals that the Assessing Officer, who has passed the assessment orders, is based in Hyderabad. Recently, the Supreme Court in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax – I, Chandigarh vs. ABC Papers Limited, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1036 has held as under:- “38. In conclusion, we hold that appeals against every decision of the ITAT shall lie only before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order is situated. Even if the case or cases of an assessee are transferred in exercise of power under Section 127 of the Act, the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer has passed the order, shall continue to exercise the jurisdiction of appeal. This principle is applicable even if the transfer is under Section 127 for the same assessment year(s).” In view of the aforesaid judgment, this Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with liberty to the appellant to file an appeal in accordance with law in a court having territorial jurisdiction within twelve weeks. The rights and contentions of all the parties are left open. MANMOHAN, J MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J SEPTEMBER 8, 2022 KA 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 15/06/2026 at 02:27:59
More judgments on Section 147
- Bha Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs ACIT, Central Circle- 29, New DelhiITA 5208/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed6 Nov 2026AY 2015-16
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shri. Adbul Rahim vs. The State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 13 Nov 2026
- Sandhyarani Das vs. The Superintendent Of CGST And Central ExciseOrissa · 11 Nov 2026
- M/S.Pitabas Jena,Pokharigaon, Cuttack vs. Supernitendent, Cuttack-Iii, Range, CuttackOrissa · 11 Nov 2026
- Sudarshan Behera vs. Superintendent Angul Circle, AngulOrissa · 11 Nov 2026
- Gayatri Priyadarshini Bisoi vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Cuttack-Ii,Cuttack, OdishaOrissa · 11 Nov 2026