ITA Nos. 52/2015, 755/2015 & 756/2015

Page 1 of 31

$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Decided on: 24th March, 2017

+

ITA 52/2015, CM APPL 23522/2015

CIT-7

..... Appellant

Versus

ODEON BUILDERS PVT. LTD

....Respondent.

With

+

ITA 755/2015

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4

..... Appellant

Versus

GULBARGA ASSOCIATES (P) LTD.

....Respondent.

And

+

ITA 756/2015

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4

..... Appellant

Versus

GULBARGA ASSOCIATES (P) LTD.

....Respondent

Appearance: Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Senior Standing counsel with

Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Junior Standing counsel for Revenue in ITA 52

of 2015

Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Lakshmi Gurung, Junior Standing counsel

for Revenue in ITA 755 and 756 of 2015

ITA Nos. 52/2015, 755/2015 & 756/2015

Page 2 of 31

Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Advocate for Respondent in ITA 52 of

2015 Mr. C.S. Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Prakash Kumar and

Mr. Rupinder Kumar Aggarwal, Advocates for Respondents in

ITA 755 and 756 of 2015.

CORAM:

JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR

JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

J U D G E M E N T

Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:

Introduction

1. The central question that arises for consideration before this Bench is

whether the words "the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief

Commissioner or Principal Commissioner" in Section 260A (2) (a) of the

Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') mean only the 'jurisdictional' Principal or

Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT) or could it include any CIT

including the CIT (Judicial)?

2. The question assumes significance in light of the stand of the Revenue

that unless the 'jurisdictional' CIT receives a certified copy of the order of

the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), the limitation of 120 days

within which an appeal has to be filed does not commence. It requires to

be clarified at the outset that the expressions 'Revenue' and 'Department'

are used interchangeably throughout the judgment. Both expressions refer

to the Income Tax Department.

Background facts in ITA 755 & 756 of 2015

ITA Nos. 52/2015, 755/2015 & 756/2015

Page 3 of 31

3. In I.T.A. Nos. 755 and 756 of 2015 are appeals by the Revenue,

through the Principal CIT Delhi-IV under Section 260-A of the Act

against a common order dated 29th October, 2014 passed by the ITAT in

a large batch of 115 appeals. Both appeals were first filed on 25th

August, 2015. Para 8 of both memoranda of appeal state that the

impugned order of the ITAT "was received in the office of the Appellant

on 28th April, 2015". Enclosed with both the appeals was only a typed

copy of the impugned order of the ITAT. The Revenue proceeded to

compute limitation on that basis and claimed, therefore, that the appeal

was filed within time on 25th August, 2015.

4. The Court perused the photocopy of the certified copy of the impugned

order, dated 29th October 2014 of the ITAT. The date stamp on the top

right hand corner of the said order showed that it was delivered to the

office of the CIT, Ghaziabad on 19th December, 2014. The left hand

bottom corner contained an endorsement of the Tax Assistant dated

22/23rd December, 2014. The explanation offered was that at the time the

appeals were heard before the ITAT, the CIT (Ghaziabad) was the

concerned CIT as far as this Assessee was concerned. On the date of the

dispatch of the impugned order of the ITAT, the memo of parties in the

appeal before the ITAT showed the address of the CIT at Ghaziabad.

Therefore, the certified copy of the order was sent to him and received by

him on 19th December, 2014. Pursuant to certain administrative orders

issued by the Income Tax Department ('Department') the jurisdiction

relating to the Assessee was transferred to the CIT, Delhi-IV. The ITAT

was, therefore, asked to send the certified copy of its order to the

'concerned' CIT, Delhi-IV. It was only after receiving the certified copy

IT