INFORMAGE REALTEK PVT. LTD. vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/13604/2022HC DelhiDLHC01035855202220 September 2022Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA3 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that in view of the Supreme Court's decision in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax – I, Chandigarh vs. ABC Papers Limited, appeals against decisions of the ITAT lie only before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order is situated. Consequently, the petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petitions with liberty to file them in the appropriate court. The Court allowed the withdrawal, granting liberty to the petitioner to file proceedings in a court having territorial jurisdiction. The Court explicitly clarified that it had not commented on the merits of the controversy and that the rights and contentions of all parties were left open. The Court noted that the penalty notice dated September 16, 2022, issued by the Assessing Officer, Circle 10(1), Delhi, had not been challenged in the present writ proceedings.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Informage Realtek Pvt. Ltd., filed writ petitions challenging notices issued under Section 148 and Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with assessment orders passed under Section 147 read with Section 144, and consequential demand and penalty notices for Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15. These orders were passed by the Assessing Officer, Ward-2(2), Gurgaon, Haryana. Subsequent to filing the writ petitions, the petitioner received another penalty notice dated September 16, 2022, under Section 274 read with Section 271F of the Act from the Assessing Officer, Circle 10(1), Delhi, for Assessment Year 2013-14. The petitioner sought to withdraw the present writ petitions with liberty to file proceedings in a court with the correct territorial jurisdiction.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Delhi High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petitions challenging assessment orders passed by an Assessing Officer situated in Gurgaon, Haryana, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax – I, Chandigarh vs. ABC Papers Limited? Assessee's contention: The learned senior counsel for the petitioner, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax – I, Chandigarh vs. ABC Papers Limited, wished to withdraw the present writ petitions with liberty to file proceedings in a court having territorial jurisdiction. Revenue's contention: The judgment records no specific contention from the Revenue on the jurisdictional issue, but their counsel was present. The Revenue's counsel, Ms. Bakshi Vinita, and Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing Counsel, were present.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 147,Section 144,Section 274,Section 271F,Section 127

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

W.P.(C) 13579/2022
W.P.(C) 13604/2022

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

$~52 & 57 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 13579/2022 & C.M.Nos.41381-41384/2022 INFORMAGE REALTEK PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Ms.Sonia Mathur, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Khushboo Aggarwal, Mr.Simarjeet Singh Saluja, Ms.Prerna Dhall and Mr.Nikhil Chandra Jaiswal, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms.Bakshi Vinita, Advocate for UOI. Mr.Abhishek Maratha, Sr.Standing Counsel for the Revenue. + W.P.(C) 13604/2022 & C.M.Nos.41463-41465/2022 INFORMAGE REALTEK PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Ms.Sonia Mathur, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Khushboo Aggarwal, Mr.Simarjeet Singh Saluja, Ms.Prerna Dhall and Mr.Nikhil Chandra Jaiswal, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms.Bakshi Vinita, Advocate for UOI. Mr.Abhishek Maratha, Sr.Standing Counsel for the Revenue. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA 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 26/06/2026 at 20:48:56

O R D E R % 20.09.2022 Present writ petitions have been filed challenging the notices dated 30th March, 2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), notices dated 4th March, 2022 issued under Section 142(1) of the Act by the Respondent no. 4, the assessment orders dated 25th March, 2022 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act and the consequential demand and penalty notices for the Assessment Years 2013- 14 & 2014-15. A perusal of the paper books reveal that the impugned assessment orders have been passed by the Assessing Officer, Ward-2(2), Gurgaon, Haryana. 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).” In view of the aforesaid judgment, learned senior counsel for the petitioner wishes to withdraw the present writ petitions with liberty to file the proceedings in a Court having territorial jurisdiction. She, however, points out that after filing of the present writ petitions, the petitioner has been served with another penalty notice under Section 274 read with Section 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 26/06/2026 at 20:48:56

271F of the Act dated 16th September, 2022 issued by the Assessing Officer, Circle 10(1), Delhi for the assessment year 2013-14. However, this Court finds that in the present writ proceedings, the said penalty notice has not been challenged. Accordingly, the present writ petitions are disposed of with liberty to file proceedings in a Court having territorial jurisdiction. This Court clarifies that it has not commented on the merits of the controversy. The rights and contentions of all the parties are left open. MANMOHAN, J MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J SEPTEMBER 20, 2022 KA 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 26/06/2026 at 20:48:56

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →