9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Challenge to demand raised for assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74, and 1974-75 based on incorrect calculation of interest u/s 220(2) of the Income-tax Act. Jurisdictional issue regarding maintainability of writ petitions in Delhi High Court.
Judgment Details: 1. The petitioner, a company based in Allahabad, challenged demands raised by the Income-tax Officer for assessment years 1972-73 to 1974-75 due to incorrect interest calculation u/s 220(2) following appellate orders. The Income-tax Officer rejected the petitioner's applications u/s 154, stating the amendment did not fall within the purview of section 154. The Department raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petitions in Delhi High Court, arguing that petitions should be filed in Allahabad High Court for assessment matters. The petitioner contended that Delhi High Court has jurisdiction due to erroneous application of a circular by the Income-tax Officer issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes in New Delhi. 2. The Delhi High Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the writ petitions. The court noted that the impugned orders were passed in Allahabad, where the petitioner's registered office is located. The court rejected the petitioner's attempt to bring the matter within its jurisdiction based on the circular, as the Income-tax Officer did not refer to the circular in raising the demands. The court emphasized that the circular did not form the basis of the Income-tax Officer's decision, which was instead based on judicial decisions. The court clarified that a circular cannot override judicial decisions and that the circular was not considered binding in this case. 3. The court further stated that even if the Income-tax Officer had the circular in mind, he did not treat it as conclusive and preferred to base his decision on judicial precedents. The court highlighted that the circular cannot constitute a ground for Delhi High Court's jurisdiction when the matter falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court. The court cited a Supreme Court decision emphasizing that a High Court should be reluctant to interfere in matters where territorial jurisdiction and convenience suggest moving to another High Court. The writ petitions were dismissed, and the court advised the petitioner to approach the Allahabad High Court for relief, if necessary. 4. The court made no ruling on the petitioner's right of appeal against the demands or orders u/s 154, suggesting that the proper course would be to seek recourse in the Allahabad High Court. The writ petitions and applications for stay were dismissed at the show-cause stage, with no order as to costs. *Petitions dismissed.*
|
