Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Asian Consolidated Industries Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 12, New Delhi

2015 (10) TMI 2312 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT

Jurisdiction of court - Held that:- This court has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the lis over an order passed by the Assessing Officer at New Delhi. The petitions are returned to the petitioner for filing before the competent court of jurisdiction in accordance with law. - CWP No. 19055 of 2015 - Dated:- 5-10-2015 - Ajay Kumar Mittal And Ramendra Jain, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Anand Chhibbar, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Riya Bansal, Adv For the Respondent : None JUDGMENT Ajay Kumar Mit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

/Del/1997 filed by it against the order dated 26.9.2002 passed by the respondent has been dismissed. 3. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in CWP No.19055 of 2015 may be noticed. The petitioner company was ordered to be wound up by this court vide order dated 7.1.1999, Annexure P.2 in CP No.8 of 1998. The control of the petitioner company came in the hands of the Official Liquidator. The exmanagement of the petitioner company filed revival petition of t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

various parties. Vide order dated 12.5.2014, Annexure P.4, the said revival petition was allowed. Prior to the filing of the revival petition on 21.1.2013, the respondent had filed CA No.222 of 2012 before this court on 18.4.2012, Annexure P.5 in the liquidation process of the petitioner company for claiming its alleged outstanding of ₹ 135 crores from the petitioner company on the basis of various ex parte orders/judgments being passed prior and after the liquidation of the petitioner com .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he petitioner to approach the income tax department i.e. Chairman CBDT for settlement of the claim. Since the details in CA No.222 of 2012 filed by the respondent were vague, the ex-management of the petitioner company moved an application i.e. CA No.393 of 2013 before this Court in August 2013, Annexure P.7 in the said liquidation petition for seeking the details of the orders/judgments and documents relating to the alleged claim of the respondent against the company. Vide order dated 28.1.2014 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e sympathetic view in condoning the delay in filing the appeal. On 29.4.2014, Annexure P.9, when the matter again came up before the court, it was recorded that the income tax issues between the department and the petitioner will remain subject to appeals which had been filed by the petitioner to challenge various orders passed by the respondent with respect to their demand. On 12.5.2014, Annexure P.10, the court finally issued orders for revival of the petitioner company and allowed the said pe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

come down to around ₹ 10 crores. The petitioner has also filed status report of the outstanding amount in CA No.365 of 2014 in CP No.6 of 2013. According to the petitioner, the present impugned order dated 9.2.2015 was concerned with the ex parte order dated 26.9.2002, Annexure P.12 passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.438/Del/1997 filed by the petitioner. The said appeal had been dismissed in default as nobody had appeared on behalf of the petitioner company on the dates of its hearing on 26 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Nos.6383, 6382, 6398 and 6397 of 2015, M/s Asian consolidated Industries Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi and another) were filed by the petitioner for another assessment year and this Court had entertained the same and passed order dated 30.7.2015, Annexure P.14 disposing of the petitions as infructuous. Referring to Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, it was urged that the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this court and ther .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Ingots's case (supra), the question therein was whether the seat of the Parliament or the Legislature of a State would be a relevant factor for determining the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was observed therein that even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the H .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the penalty proceedings on the ground of delay. In that case, the grievance of the petitioner stood redressed in view of the fact that the quantum proceedings had been decided in favour of the petitioner. As a result, the penalty proceedings did not survive. The order passed therein reads thus:- "The petitioner has challenged the order(s) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissing its appeal(s) against the penalty proceedings on the ground of delay. 2. In effect, therefore, the petiti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

In view thereof, no further orders are necessary in these writ petitions. 4. The objection to these petitions on the ground of delay is therefore, not sustainable." In the above mentioned writ petitions, the question of jurisdiction was not in issue and moreover, the writ petitions were disposed of with the clarification that since the petitioner's grievance stood redressed and the penalty proceedings did not survive, no further orders were necessary in the said writ petitions. In such .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Court on the ground that the assessee respondent had requested for transfer of the case from Bangalore to Gurgaon on 02.01.2002 and the case was transferred from Bangalore to Gurgaon on 20.05.2005 under Section 127 of the Act. The Division Bench of this Court, while repelling the aforesaid contention had noticed as under: "The decision of the High Courts are binding on the subordinate Courts and authorities or Tribunals under its superintendence throughout the territory in relation to whic .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

orial jurisdiction over the situs of the Assessing Officer and if it was otherwise then it would result in serious anomalies as an assessee affected by an assessment order at Bombay may invoke the jurisdiction of Delhi High Court to take advantage of a suitable decision taken by it. Thus, such an assessee may avoid application of inconvenient law laid down by the jurisdictional High Court of Bombay. On the basis of the aforementioned reasoning, the Division Bench sustained the objection that the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version