9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (2) TMI 452 - HC - Income TaxJurisdiction of Delhi court to entertain the present appeal - Revision u/s 263 against Firms dissolved - HELD THAT - In Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta 1978 (3) TMI 100 - DELHI HIGH COURT this court held that the High Court within whose jurisdiction the AO has passed the assessment order would have the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal u/s 260A of the Act. In M/s ABC Papers Ltd. 2022 (8) TMI 863 - SUPREME COURT the Supreme Court considered the question as to the jurisdiction of the court in cases in which the jurisdiction of the AO had been transferred during the pendency of the proceedings pursuant to an order passed under Section 127. This court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal as it emanates from the assessment order issued by the AO in Amritsar. In the present case as original assessment order was passed by the AO in Amritsar therefore this court would not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present appeal. Once it is found that this court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the present appeal it would not be apposite to examine any other question relating to the merits of the dispute including whether the learned ITAT had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal preferred by CFIPL.
The Revenue filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the case of Chemester Food Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 (PCIT) had set aside the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) for the assessment year 2014-15, holding it to be erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interest. The ITAT allowed CFIPL's appeal, stating that an order framed in the name of a dissolved entity could not be revised under Section 263 of the Act, rendering the order invalid.The key legal questions considered in the appeal were:1. Whether there is a specific provision in the Income Tax Act to assess dissolved firms?2. Whether the Tribunal erred in relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., which was deemed distinguishable from the present case?CFIPL raised a jurisdictional objection, arguing that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the appeal as the original assessment order was passed by the AO in Amritsar. The court analyzed the jurisdictional issue and referred to precedents such as Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta v. Commissioner of Income Tax and Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh v. M/s ABC Papers Ltd. The court held that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal based on the location of the AO who passed the assessment order.The court further addressed the argument that CFIPL's appeal before the Delhi bench of the ITAT implied acceptance of jurisdiction, emphasizing that the lack of jurisdiction at the High Court level precluded examination of other issues. The court concluded that the appeal was disposed of, allowing the Revenue to appeal before the Punjab & Haryana High Court if desired.In summary, the court's decision centered on the lack of territorial jurisdiction to entertain the appeal based on the location of the AO who passed the assessment order, ultimately leading to the disposal of the appeal without delving into the merits of the case or the ITAT's jurisdiction.
|
