2017 (9) TMI 821 - HC - Income Tax

Appeal Dismissed for Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction

The High Court dismissed the appeal due to lack of territorial jurisdiction, as the Assessing Officer, CIT(A), and Tribunal were all based in New Delhi. ... Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - appeal under Section 260A before this Court maintainable - Held that:- The matter is no longer res integra. This Court in Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Gurgaon Vs. M/s Parabolic Drugs Limited [2013 (1) TMI 565 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] following the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Faridabad Vs. M/s Motorola India Limited [2007 (10) TMI 384 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] had held as under:- “Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed by holding that this court has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the lis over an order passed by the Assessing Officer at New Delhi. Consequently, the appeal is returned to the Revenue for filing before the competent Court of jurisdiction in accordance with law.” In view of the above, present appeal is dismissed as this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the lis over an order passed by the Assessing Officer at New Delhi. Consequently, the appeal is returned to the revenue for filing before the competent court of jurisdiction in accordance with law. Issues:Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act.Analysis:The appellant-revenue filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act challenging the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench. The substantial questions of law raised by the appellant included issues related to the onus of proof under Section 271(1)(c), inaccurate particulars of income, incorrect claims under Section 80HHC, disallowance of gratuity amount, and penalty imposition under Section 43B. The Tribunal had deleted the penalty based on a decision by the Apex Court, leading to the current appeal.The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act, resulting in various additions to the total income of the assessee. The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer, which led to the imposition of a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The CIT(A) upheld the penalty, prompting the assessee to appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, following a decision by the Apex Court, allowed the appeal and deleted the penalty. This action by the Tribunal gave rise to the current appeal before the High Court.The main issue before the High Court was the jurisdiction to adjudicate on the appeal under Section 260A of the Act. The Court referred to previous judgments and held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to decide on matters where the Assessing Officer, CIT(A), and Tribunal were all based in New Delhi. Citing precedents, the Court dismissed the appeal and returned it to the revenue for filing before the appropriate jurisdictional court.In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal due to lack of territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matter involving orders passed by authorities in New Delhi. The Court directed the revenue to file the appeal before the competent court with the appropriate jurisdiction.