PR. COMMISSIONER OFLNCOME TAX -1, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S KUANTUM PAPERS·LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/515/2019HC DelhiDLHC01023523201921 May 2019Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court noted that it is bound by its own previous decision in CIT v. Aar Bee Industries (2013) 357 ITR 542 (Del). In that case, the Delhi High Court had held that where there is a transfer of cases, the jurisdiction of the High Court would lie within whose territorial jurisdiction the situs of the officer passing the order is located, irrespective of where the original assessment order was passed. This principle was applied to the present appeal. The Court acknowledged that this view was contrary to the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in ITA 130 of 2018, which the Revenue had challenged before the Supreme Court. Since the Delhi High Court is bound by its own precedent, it found that the present appeal could not be entertained and was accordingly dismissed. The applications filed were also dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, represented by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - I, Chandigarh, is appealing an order dated May 11, 2017, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No. 2263/Del./2012 for Assessment Year 2008-09. The Revenue had initially filed an appeal (ITA No.517/2017) before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. However, that High Court, in a separate case (ITA No.130/2018 concerning ABC Papers Limited), held that despite an order under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act transferring jurisdiction to Chandigarh, the jurisdiction did not lie with the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. Consequently, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The present appeal before the Delhi High Court concerns the correctness of an assessment order dated December 30, 2010, passed by the DCIT, Circle-1, New Delhi, under Section 143(3) of the Act.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court of Delhi has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present appeal, notwithstanding an order under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act transferring the assessee's cases to Chandigarh, considering the situs of the assessing officer who passed the original assessment order. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the assessee regarding the jurisdiction. The assessee is represented by Mr. Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contends that the jurisdiction lies with the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the officer passing the order is located, as per the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT v. Aar Bee Industries (2013) 357 ITR 542 (Del). This view contradicts the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision in ITA 130 of 2018, which the Revenue has challenged before the Supreme Court. The Revenue is represented by Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Senior Standing Counsel.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 127,Section 153-A,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA 515/2019 Page 1 of 3

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 57 +

ITA 515/2019 & CM 24043 and 24044/2019

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, CHANDIGARH ..... Appellant

Through: Mr Zoheb Hossain, Senior Standing

Counsel for Revenue.

versus

M/S KUANTUM PAPERS·LTD. ..... Respondent

Through: Mr Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate

with Mr Aniket D. Agrawal,

Advocates.

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA

O R D E R %

21.05.2019

1.

The Revenue is in appeal against an order dated 11th May, 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No. 2263/Del./2012 for the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2008-09.

2.

The Appellant is the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax – I, Chandigarh. Against the same impugned order, the Revenue had initially filed ITA No.517/2017 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. The Punjab and Haryana High Court by its decision dated 7th February, 2019 in ITA No.130/2018 (Principal CIT v ABC Papers Limited) held that notwithstanding an order under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act,

ITA 515/2019 Page 2 of 3

1961 (hereafter ‘the Act’), transferring the jurisdiction of the cases involving the Assessee to Chandigarh, the jurisdiction would not be that of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. On this basis it dismissed ITA 517 of 2017 as well.

3.

It may be mentioned at this stage that ITA No.130/2018 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana involved the correctness of an order passed under Section 153-A of the Act by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT) at Ghaziabad. As far as ITA No.517/2017 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh was concerned, it involved the correctness of an assessment order dated 30th December, 2010 passed by the DCIT, Circle-1, New Delhi under Section 143 (3) of the Act.

4.

The Court is informed by the learned counsel for the Revenue that as far as the order under Section 153-A of the Act passed by the DCIT, Ghaziabad is concerned, against the order of the ITAT, the Revenue has already approached the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. At the same time, the Revenue has also filed a Special Leave Petition against the judgment dated 7th February, 2019 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The decision in the said SLP is awaited.

5.

As far as the position of law is concerned, this Court in CIT v. Aar Bee Industries (2013) 357 ITR 542 (Del) has held that where there is transfer of cases, then notwithstanding where the original order of assessment order or order under challenge may have been passed, the jurisdiction would lie with the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the situs of the Officer

ITA 515/2019 Page 3 of 3

passing the order is located. This is of course contrary to the view expressed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in ITA 130 of 2018 before it, which has been challenged by the Revenue before the Supreme Court.

6.

Since this Court is bound by its own view, obviously the present appeal cannot be entertained and is accordingly dismissed as such. The applications are also dismissed.

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

I.S. MEHTA, J. MAY 21, 2019 rd

More judgments on Section 127

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →