Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Gurgaon v. Sudhir Dhingra
High Court
12 Feb 2018 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Gurgaon v. Sudhir Dhingra
Date of order
12 Feb 2018
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Gurgaon v. Sudhir Dhingra, the High Court (2018) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: In view of the aforesaid judgement of this Court, the appeal is dismissed only on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
--ITA4612017 (O&M)-Date of decision: 12.02.2018
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Gurgaon
...Appellant
Versus
Sudhir Dhingra
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, CHIEF JUSTICEHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN
Present:- Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Advocate, for the appellant.
* * * *
S.J. VAZIFDAR, C.J. (ORAL)
This is an appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 03.04.2017 dismissing the appellant’s appeal against the order of the CIT (Appeals) dated 07.07.2006. The CIT (Appeals) allowed the assessee’s appeal whereby certain additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted. The matter pertains to the block period 01.04.1990 to 20.08.2000. 2. Mr. Sethi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, fairly states that in view of the judgement dated 03.10.2007 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in ITA-44-2005 titled as The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad Vs M/s Motorola India Ltd., this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. He states that the appellant is in a peculiar predicament as a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs AAR Bee Industries (2013) 262 CTR 0001 (Del) has disagreed with the view taken by this Court as a result of which even if the
appeal is filed in the Delhi High Court, the same would be dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction.
3. The appellant, therefore, wishes to carry this matter in appeal to the Supreme Court. That is for the appellant to decide.
The appellant, therefore, wishes to carry this matter
4. In view of the aforesaid judgement of this Court, the appeal is dismissed only on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.
5. The original file be returned to the appellant.
(S.J. VAZIFDAR)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(AVNEESH JHINGAN) JUDGE
12.02.2018
Amodh
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.