PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,DELHI vs. ANAMIKA DEALCOM PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/79/2022HC DelhiDLHC01043245202129 August 2022Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that it does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present appeals. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax – I, Chandigarh vs. ABC Papers Limited, which held 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. The Court dismissed the appeals, granting liberty to the appellant to file appeals in a court having territorial jurisdiction. The rights and contentions of all parties were left open.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Delhi and the Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-1 against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The assessee is Anamika Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer who passed the assessment orders is based in Kolkata. The appeals were filed before the Delhi High Court. The respondent-assessee's counsel entered appearance, discharging the caveat.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Delhi High Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the appeals, given that the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment orders is situated in Kolkata? (Question of law turning on territorial jurisdiction). Assessee's Contention: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contention: Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 127

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~31 & 39 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 79/2022 & CAV 85/2022 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,DELHI ..... Appellant Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Sr.Standing Counsel for the Revenue. versus ANAMIKA DEALCOM PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Mr.Gautam Swarup with Mr.Kartikeya Jaiswal and Ms.Gunjan Jindal, Advocates. + ITA 124/2022 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1 ..... Appellant Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Sr.Standing Counsel for the Revenue. versus ANAMIKA DEALCOM PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Mr.Gautam Swarup with Mr.Kartikeya Jaiswal and Ms.Gunjan Jindal, Advocates.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA O R D E R % 29.08.2022 CAV No.85/2022 in ITA No.79/2022 Since Mr. Gautam Swarup, learned counsel enters appearance on behalf of the respondent, caveat stands discharged. ITA No.79/2022 ITA No.124/2022 A perusal of the paper book reveals that the Assessing Officer, who has passed the assessment orders, is based in Kolkota. Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax – I, Chandigarh vs. ABC Papers Limited, Civil Appeal No.4252/2022 has held as under:- “33. 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 appeals. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed with liberty to the appellant to file appeals in

accordance with law in a court having territorial jurisdiction. The rights and contentions of all the parties are left open. MANMOHAN, J MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J AUGUST 29, 2022 KA

More judgments on Section 127

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →