SGE ADVISORS (INDIA) PVT. LTD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
ITA/287/2019HC DelhiDLHC01001888201817 November 2022Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that it has no territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the present appeal. This conclusion was based on the Supreme Court's decision in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax – I, Chandigarh vs. ABC Papers Limited, which mandates that appeals against ITAT decisions lie before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order is situated. The Court stated that even if cases are transferred under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, the jurisdiction remains with the High Court where the Assessing Officer passed the order. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of with liberty to the appellant to file it in a court with the correct territorial jurisdiction within twelve weeks. The rights and contentions of all parties were left open.

What were the facts?

The appellant, SGE Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd., filed an Income Tax Appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging an order dated July 5, 2018, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No. 7751/M/2010, concerning assessment year 2005-06. The Assessing Officer who passed the original assessment order was based in Mumbai. The appeal was filed with a delay, which was condoned. The respondent is the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. The High Court noted that the Supreme Court in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax – I, Chandigarh vs. ABC Papers Limited, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1036, had held that appeals against ITAT decisions lie before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order is situated.

What were the issues?

1. Does the Delhi High Court have territorial jurisdiction to hear the present appeal, given that the Assessing Officer who passed the original assessment order was based in Mumbai, as per the ruling in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax – I, Chandigarh vs. ABC Papers Limited? Assessee's Contention: The assessee filed the appeal before the Delhi High Court. No specific argument regarding territorial jurisdiction was recorded in favor of the assessee, but the appeal was filed. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by learned counsel, did not explicitly argue on territorial jurisdiction but was present. The judgment relies on the Supreme Court's decision to determine jurisdiction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 127

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~A-3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 287/2019 SGE ADVISORS (INDIA) PVT. LTD ..... Appellant Through: Mr.G.C.Srivastava with Mr.Kalrav Mehrotra and Mr.Mayank Patawari, Advocates. versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Zoheb Hossain, Sr.Standing Counsel with Mr.Vipul Agrawal and Mr.Parth Semwal, Jr.Standing Counsel. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA O R D E R % 17.11.2022 CM APPL.14758/2019 (exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. CM APPL.14759/2019 Keeping in view the averments in the application, the delay in re- filing the appeal is condoned. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. ITA 287/2019 Present Income Tax Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 5th July, 2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No.7751/M/2010 along with cross-objections being CO.No.94/M/2012 and

ITA No.4782/Del/2013 for the assessment year 2005-06. Learned counsel for the appellant admits that the Assessing Officer who has passed the assessment order is based in Mumbai. 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).” Consequently, this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the present appeal. Accordingly, the present appeal along with pending application is disposed of with liberty to the appellant to file the present appeal in a Court having territorial jurisdiction within twelve weeks. This Court clarifies that the rights and contentions of all the parties are left open. MANMOHAN, J MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J NOVEMBER 17, 2022 TS

More judgments on Section 127

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →