PRINCIPAL CIT ,BANGALORE vs. PHOENIX LAMPS LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/166/2022HC DelhiDLHC01043456202125 May 2022Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the appeal. The Court noted that the assessee's initial registered office was in Noida, and the assessment and appellate orders were passed by authorities based in Noida. Although the assessee's registered office is now in Bangalore after amalgamation, and the appeal was filed by the Principal CIT, Bangalore, the primary connection for the assessment proceedings was Noida. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. However, the appellant was granted liberty to file the appeal in a court with the correct territorial jurisdiction and to file an application for condonation of delay, which would be considered on its own merits.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore, filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging an order dated February 28, 2020, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No. 4373/Del./2017 for Assessment Year 2010-11. The ITAT's order was against Phoenix Lamps Ltd. The assessee's initial registered office was in Noida, Uttar Pradesh, and the assessment order, remand report, and order in appeal were passed by authorities based in Noida. Following an amalgamation, the assessee's registered office is now in Bangalore. The appeal was filed by the Principal CIT, Bangalore.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Delhi High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present appeal, considering the location of the assessee's registered office and the authorities that passed the original assessment and appellate orders. The Revenue contended that the appeal was filed by the Principal CIT, Bangalore, and the assessee's registered office is now in Bangalore. The Revenue did not explicitly argue for jurisdiction but presented facts suggesting a connection to Bangalore. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the assessee regarding jurisdiction.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 166/2022 PRINCIPAL CIT ,BANGALORE ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sunil Agarwal, Sr. Standing Counsel, Mr. Tushar Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocate. versus PHOENIX LAMPS LTD ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA O R D E R % 25.05.2022 CM APPL. 24994/2022 CM APPL. 24995/2022 Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, applications stand disposed of. CM APPL. 24996/2022 Keeping in view the averments in the application, the delay in filing the present appeal is condoned. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. ITA 166/2022 Present Income Tax Appeal has been filed challenging the Order dated 28th February, 2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No. 4373/Del./2017 for Assessment Year 2010-11. 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 15/06/2026 at 01:52:58

A perusal of the paper book reveals that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide this appeal. The initial registered office of the Assessee was Noida (U.P) and the assessment order as well as remand report and order in appeal have been passed by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) based in Noida. After amalgamation, the Petitioner’s registered office is now situated in Bangalore. Even the appeal has been preferred by the Principal CIT, Bangalore. Accordingly, present appeal is dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. However, the Appellant is given liberty to file the appeal in a Court having territorial jurisdiction. The Appellant is also given liberty to file an application seeking condonation of delay along with the appeal, if any, to be filed. Needless to state that the same shall be considered on its own merits. MANMOHAN, J MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J MAY 25, 2022/msh 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 15/06/2026 at 01:52:58

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →