PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9 vs. M/S VODAFONE IDEA LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS: M/S VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICE LTD. EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S VOD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/839/2019HC DelhiDLHC01002283201831 October 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. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax – I, Chandigarh vs. ABC Papers Limited, which clearly states 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. This principle applies even if the case was transferred under Section 127 of the Act. Therefore, since the Assessing Officer is based in Ahmedabad, the appeal should have been filed before the Gujarat High Court. The Court disposed of the appeal along with applications, granting liberty to the appellant to file the appeal in the appropriate court within twelve weeks. The rights and contentions of all parties were left open.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-9, filed an Income Tax Appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging an order dated 17th November, 2016, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No.909/Ahd/2014 & ITA No.944/Ahd/2014 for the Assessment Year 2009-10. The respondent is M/s Vodafone Idea Ltd. The appellant's counsel admitted that the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order was based in Ahmedabad. The appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Delhi High Court has the territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the present appeal, given that the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order is situated in Ahmedabad, as per Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the assessee (M/s Vodafone Idea Ltd.). Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its counsel, relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax – I, Chandigarh vs. ABC Papers Limited, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1036, to argue that the jurisdiction lies with the High Court where the Assessing Officer is situated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 127

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~A-3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 839/2019 & CM APPLs.41502-41503/2019 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9 ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Zoheb Hossain, Sr.Standing Counsel with Mr.Vipul Agrawal and Mr.Parth Semwal, Jr.Standing Counsel. versus M/S VODAFONE IDEA LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS: M/S VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICE LTD. EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S VODAFONE WEST LTD.) ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Disha Jham, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA O R D E R % 31.10.2022 Present Income Tax Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 17th November, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No.909/Ahd/2014 & ITA No.944/Ahd/2014 for the Assessment Year 2009-10. Learned counsel for the Appellant admits that the Assessing Officer, who had passed the assessment order is based in Ahmedabad. 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 applications 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 OCTOBER 31, 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 →