SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR BANSAL vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/9417/2019HC DelhiDLHC01035382201913 February 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. The Court noted that the facts presented in the counter affidavit, which were undisputed, clearly indicated that the petitioner resided in Ghaziabad, the jurisdictional assessing officer was in Ghaziabad, the declaration under the IDS-2016 was filed with the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad, and the impugned letter/order and notice under Section 148 were issued by authorities in Ghaziabad. Consequently, the High Court of Allahabad would be the appropriate forum to entertain such a petition. The Court found itself unable to entertain or continue the instant writ petition due to the lack of territorial jurisdiction. The writ petition was dismissed with liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional High Court.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shri Pradeep Kumar Bansal, resident of Ghaziabad, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging a letter/order dated March 25, 2019, rejecting the benefit of the Income Tax Declaration Scheme, 2016 (IDS-2016), and a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, both issued by authorities in Ghaziabad. The respondents, Central Board of Direct Taxes and another, raised a preliminary objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. They pointed out that the petitioner's jurisdictional assessing officer is in Ghaziabad, the IDS-2016 declaration was submitted to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad, and the impugned order and notice were also issued by Ghaziabad-based authorities.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Delhi High Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition concerning an order and notice issued by income tax authorities in Ghaziabad, when the petitioner resides in Ghaziabad and the jurisdictional assessing officer is also located there? (Question of law) The Petitioner (represented by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Mr. Somil Agarwal, Mr. Dushyant Agarwal) did not argue on the merits of the case, as the petition was dismissed on a preliminary objection. The Respondent (represented by Mr. Vipul Agarwal, SSC, Mr. Gibram Naushad, Ms. Sakshi Shainwal) argued that the Delhi High Court should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. They contended that all essential facts leading to the petition, including the petitioner's residence, the jurisdictional assessing officer, the submission of the IDS-2016 form, and the issuance of the impugned order and notice, pertain to Ghaziabad. Therefore, the jurisdictional High Court for the petitioner would be the High Court of Allahabad, not the Delhi High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~27 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 9417/2019

SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR BANSAL ..... Petitioner Through: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Mr. Somil Agarwal, Mr. Dushyant Agarwal, Advs.

versus

CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES & ANR. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Vipul Agarwal, SSC with Mr. Gibram Naushad, Ms. Sakshi Shainwal, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

O R D E R %

13.02.2024 1. From the counter affidavit which has been filed, we note that the following preliminary objection has been taken:- “4. The Respondents at the very outset seek to humbly submit that this Hon'ble Court should refrain from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226/227 in the present case. It is humbly submitted that the essential facts leading to the present petition are as follows: i. The Petitioner as per memo of parties, is a resident of KB-18, Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad. ii. The jurisdictional assessing officer of the Petitioner, as on date is ITO Ward 2(2)(1), Ghaziabad. iii. The Form of Declaration dated 29.09.2016, under the Income Tax Declaration Scheme Rules, 2016 (IDS-2016) was submitted by the Petitioner, with the office of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad. iv. The impugned letter/order dated 25.03.2019 rejecting the benefit of IDS-2016 has been issued/passed by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad. v. The impugned notice u/s 148 dated 25.03.2019 has been issued by ITO, Ward 2(1), Ghaziabad.”

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 16/12/2024 at 16:44:26

2.

In view of the aforesaid facts which are undisputed, we find ourselves unable to entertain or continue the instant writ petition. 3. Since we would lack territorial jurisdiction, the writ petition shall stand dismissed with liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional High Court.

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. FEBRUARY 13, 2024/neha

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 16/12/2024 at 16:44:26

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →