Delhi High Court clarifies jurisdiction in faceless assessment cases, ensures uniformity

The Delhi High Court, in a writ petition challenging an assessment order for the assessment year 2018-19 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, addressed the issue of jurisdiction in faceless assessment cases. Despite objections regarding the maintainability of the petition before the Delhi High Court due to the petitioner's location, the Court relied on precedents emphasizing that the location of the assessee does not impact jurisdiction. The Court decided to refer the matter to the Roster Bench dealing with taxation matters to ensure uniformity and efficiency in handling similar cases, demonstrating a commitment to consistency in addressing jurisdictional issues.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to assessment order for the assessment year 2018-19 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Jurisdiction of the High Court in faceless assessment cases, Maintainability of the petition before the Delhi High Court, Applicability of precedents on jurisdiction in writ petitions.

Analysis:
The judgment concerns a writ petition challenging an assessment order for the assessment year 2018-19 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, a charitable society registered under Section 12A and Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, filed the return of income claiming exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act. The petitioner was issued a notice under Section 143(2) for scrutiny, and subsequently, a notice to show cause by a specific date. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the petitioner requested an adjournment but the assessment order was passed before a response could be submitted. Instead of appealing the order, the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the assessment.

The issue of jurisdiction arose as the counsel for the respondents contended that since the petitioner was an assessee in Chandigarh, the petition before the Delhi High Court was not maintainable. However, the Court referred to precedents emphasizing that the location of the assessee does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court in faceless assessment cases. Citing cases like Kusum Inglots & Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Cement Workers’ Mandal Vs. Global Cements Limited, the Court highlighted that a writ petition can be maintainable at multiple locations when authorities are situated in different places. The Court also referred to the recent judgment in Maharashtra Chess Association Vs. Union of India, emphasizing that jurisdiction under Article 226 is not ousted based on parties agreeing to the jurisdiction of another Court.

To ensure consistency and avoid conflicting views, the Court decided that the matter should be considered by the Roster Bench dealing with taxation matters. This decision aimed to prevent delays in case disposal and potential referral to a larger Bench. The Court scheduled the petition to be listed before the Roster Bench on a specific date, subject to the orders of the Chief Justice. This approach was deemed appropriate to maintain uniformity in opinion on the jurisdictional issue likely to arise in similar cases.

In conclusion, the judgment addresses the challenge to the assessment order, jurisdiction of the High Court in faceless assessment cases, maintainability of the petition, and the applicability of precedents on jurisdiction in writ petitions. The decision to refer the matter to the Roster Bench reflects the Court's commitment to ensuring consistency and efficiency in handling such cases.

---