VEDANTA LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO CAIRN INDIA LIMITED) vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA/310/2018HC DelhiDLHC01036648201810 November 2022Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that it did not have the territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the present appeals. This decision was based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax – I, Chandigarh vs. ABC Papers Limited, which established that appeals against ITAT decisions must be filed before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order is situated. The Court noted that the Assessing Officer in this case was based in Gurgaon. Therefore, the appeals were disposed of with liberty to the appellants to file them in the appropriate court having territorial jurisdiction within twelve weeks. The rights and contentions of all parties were left open.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by Vedanta Limited (successor to Cairn India Limited) and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-9, New Delhi, challenging orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13. The Assessing Officer who passed the original assessment orders was based in Gurgaon. The Delhi High Court noted that the Supreme Court in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax – I, Chandigarh vs. ABC Papers Limited 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. Consequently, the Delhi High Court determined it lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear these appeals.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Delhi High Court has the territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the present appeals, given that the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment orders is situated in Gurgaon? (Question of law turning on territorial jurisdiction). Assessee's Contention: Not recorded. Revenue's Contention: Not recorded. The core issue revolved around the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court to hear appeals against ITAT orders, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax – I, Chandigarh vs. ABC Papers Limited.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 127

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~48 to 53 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA 303/2018 VEDANTA LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO CAIRN INDIA LIMITED) PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9, NEW DELHI

ITA 310/2018 VEDANTA LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO CAIRN INDIA LIMITED) PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9, NEW DELHI

ITA 259/2019 THE PR. COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX -9

ITA 347/2019 & CM APPL. 15850/2019

ITA 364/2019

ITA 384/2019 & CM APPL. 17668/2019, CM APPL. 17669/2019 VEDANTA LTD. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

O R D E R % 10.11.2022 Present Income Tax Appeals have been filed challenging the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) dated 9th October, 2017 in ITA No. 263/Del./2017 for Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2012-13, ITA No. 1459/Del./2016 for AY 2011-12 and the Order dated 27th August, 2018 in MA No. 389/Del./2018 in ITA No.263/Del./2017 for AY 2012-13 and MA No. 390/Del./2018 in ITA No.1459/Del./2016 for AY 2011-12. This Court has issued notices and framed questions of law in two cases. Learned counsel for the parties admits that the Assessing Officer, who had passed the assessment orders is based in Gurgaon. 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).” Consequently, this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the present appeals. Accordingly, the present appeals alongwith pending applications are disposed of with liberty to the appellants to file the present appeals 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 10, 2022 AS

More judgments on Section 127

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →