RAMESH KUMAR BAGRI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 (1), FARIDABAD
What did the High Court hold?
The Delhi High Court agreed with the Revenue, holding that the situs of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer determines the jurisdiction of the High Court. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable before the Delhi High Court.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed appeals before the Delhi High Court. The Revenue argued that the appeals should be filed before the Punjab & Haryana High Court as the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is in Faridabad. The assessee contended that the assessment was made by the National Faceless Assessment Centre in Delhi and the ITAT Delhi Bench had decided prior appeals.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the determination of the correct High Court for filing appeals against an ITAT order, considering the location of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer versus the location of the faceless assessment centre and the ITAT bench.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- PCIT v. ABC Papers Ltd.181 citing447 ITR 1 · 2022 · SC · Read judgment
$~60 to 64 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 280/2026, CM APPL. 21014/2026, CM APPL. 21015/2026 & CM APPL. 21016/2026 + ITA 281/2026, CM APPL. 21017/2026, CM APPL. 21018/2026 & CM APPL. 21019/2026 + ITA 282/2026, CM APPL. 21020/2026, CM APPL. 21021/2026 & CM APPL. 21022/2026 + ITA 283/2026, CM APPL. 21024/2026, CM APPL. 21025/2026 & CM APPL. 21026/2026 + ITA 284/2026, CM APPL. 21027/2026, CM APPL. 21028/2026 & CM APPL. 21029/2026 RAMESH KUMAR BAGRI
.....Appellant Through: Mr. Mayank Patawari & Mr. Akash Ojha, Advs. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 (1), FARIDABAD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC with Ms.Naincy Jain & Ms. Madhavi Shukla, JSCs & Mr. Udit Dad, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR O R D E R %
02.04.2026 1. Mr. Shlok Chandra, learned senior standing counsel for the respondent-Department, at the outset, submitted that since the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘JAO’) of the assessee is in Faridabad, the appellant should approach the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. 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 06/04/2026 at 12:59:03
Learned counsel for the appellant on the other hand, argued that the assessment order was passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, which is situated in Delhi and that apart, Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has decided the appellant’s appeals hence, the appeals shall lie before this Court. 3. Heard. 4. We agree with the submissions made by Mr. Shlok Chandra, learned senior standing counsel for the respondent-Department, in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax 1 vs M/S ABC Papers Limited reported in (2022) 447 ITR 1, because citus is as per the seat of the JAO. 5. We, therefore, dispose of these appeals by giving liberty to the appellant to prefer appeal(s) before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. 6. While disposing of these appeals, we hereby record that these appeals against order of the Tribunal dated 29.08.2025 were instituted by the appellant on 16.02.2026. 7. The Registry is directed to hand over certified copy (if any) filed by the appellant to learned counsel for the appellant. 8. All the appeals along with pending applications, stand disposed of as not maintainable before the Delhi High Court. DINESH MEHTA, J VINOD KUMAR, J APRIL 2, 2026 kk 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 06/04/2026 at 12:59:03
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Ramesh Kumar Bagri vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (1), FaridabadDelhi2 Apr 2026Dismissed
Also relies on PCIT v. ABC Papers Ltd.
The Delhi High Court agreed with the Revenue that the situs of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer determines the jurisdiction. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable before the Delhi High Court.
- Ramesh Kumar Bagri vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1) FaridabadDelhi2 Apr 2026Dismissed
Also relies on PCIT v. ABC Papers Ltd.
The Delhi High Court agreed with the Revenue's submission, citing a Supreme Court judgment. The court held that the situs of the JAO determines the jurisdiction for appeals.
- Ramesh Kumar Bagri vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1) FaridabadDelhi2 Apr 2026Dismissed
Also relies on PCIT v. ABC Papers Ltd.
The Delhi High Court agreed with the Revenue that the situs of the JAO determines the jurisdiction. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable before the Delhi High Court.
- Ramesh Kumar Bagri vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1) FaridabadDelhi2 Apr 2026Dismissed
Also relies on PCIT v. ABC Papers Ltd.
The Delhi High Court held that the situs of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer determines the jurisdiction, following a Supreme Court judgment. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable before the Delhi High Court.
- The Pr Commissioner of Income Tax vs Greenko Budhil Hydro Power Pvt LtdKarnataka3 Sept 2025Dismissed
Also relies on PCIT v. ABC Papers Ltd.
The High Court noted that the appeal might not be maintainable based on a Supreme Court decision concerning assessments made by officers in Hyderabad. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026