Sushil Kumar Purohit V. Union of India and Commissioner of Income Tax Central and Commissioner of Income Tax-central and Income Tax Settlement Commission Principal Bench

SAW/1124/2009

AI Insights

The case involves Sushil Kumar Purohit, the appellant, who challenged the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge that allowed a writ petition preferred by the Income Tax Department against him and the Income Tax Settlement Commission. The core issue was the jurisdiction of the Rajasthan High Court to entertain the writ against the appellant, who was assessed in Kolkata and not in Rajasthan. The appellant argued that all proceedings and assessments were conducted in Kolkata, and thus, the Rajasthan High Court lacked jurisdiction. The respondents defended the learned Single Judge's decision, asserting the correctness of the jurisdiction. However, the court, after reviewing the facts and legal precedents, concluded that the appropriate jurisdiction for this matter is the Calcutta High Court.

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 811960 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 05-07-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Vs. Suvarna Board Mills- AIR 1994 SC 2657, Hira Nath Misra Vs. Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi- AIR 1973 SC 1260 equivalent 1973(1) SCC 805
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SAMEER SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: GUNJAN PATHAK
• Keywords: Assessment; Income tax settlement commission; Jurisdiction; Promissory Estoppel
• Section: 245D

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1124 / 2009 Sushil Kumar Purohit, C/o B.C. Purohit and Company, Commerce House, Room No. 5, 2nd Floor, 2-Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkata. ----Appellant Versus 1. Union of India, Through Commissioner of Income Tax Central, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax-central, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur (Raj.) 3. The Income Tax Settlement Commission Principal Bench, Khan Market, New Delhi through the Secretary, ----Respondents _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gunjan Pathak For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sameer Sharma on behalf of Mr. Anil Mehta _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Judgment Per Hon’ble K.S. Jhaveri, J 05/07/2017 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of learned Single Judge whereby learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition preferred by the Income Tax Department against Sushil Kumar Purohit and the Income Tax Settlement Commission ( Income Tax and Wealth Tax) Additional Bench, 10-C, Middleton Row, 2nd Floor, Kolkata on a wrong premise that the appellant is assessed at Rajasthan. (2 of 4) [SAW-1124/2009] 2. From the cause title it is very clear that the appellant is resident of Kolkata and in view of the averments which are made in the memo of appeal he is regularly assessed under the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata and all throughout he has filed claims before the Settlement Commissioner at Kolkata. The appellant in Para 9 of the memo of appeal has averred as under:- “That the Appellant vide letter dated 10.05.2007, requested the Add.I.T.S.C., Kolkata, to process its application filed u/s 245D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Add. I.T.S.C., Kolkata vide its notice dated 11.06.2007, called upon the Appellant to make the payment of tax and interest before the 31.07.2007 in accordance to the applicable scheme to the case of the Appellant. The Appellant made the payment of tax and interest on 21.07.2007 and submitted the particulars of payment to the Add. I.T.S.C., Kolkata, vide letter dated 30.07.2007.” 3. Apart from that specific ground has been taken by the appellant that the provisions of the Act have been invoked and the appellant has exercised his right before the Settlement Commissioner at Kolkata and the search and the proceedings which were carried out at the State of Rajasthan were against his relatives to which the appellant has no concerned and he was not falling within the jurisdiction of Commission of Income Tax, Rajasthan. In that view of the matter, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ against the present appellant. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Vs. Suvarna Board Mills- AIR 1994 SC 2657 and Hira Nath Misra Vs. Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi- AIR 1973 SC 1260 equivalent 1973(1) SCC 805 and also the (3 of 4) [SAW-1124/2009] provisions of the Income Tax Act and also contended that in view of the principle of promissory estoppel whereby the authorities are estopped to challenge the order of the ITSC after having given its effect and collection of tax and interest. 4. Counsel for the respondents has justified the order of the learned Single Judge and submitted that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. We have heard Mr. Gunjan Pathak on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Sameer Sharma for the respondents. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that the assessee was assessed at Kolkata and all proceedings of Settlement Commissioner had taken place at Kolkata which is evident from the averments made in para 4 of the memo of appeal and a schedule to this effect has also been made in para 8 which reads as under: Name of the assessee (1) P.A.N. No. (2) From A.O. (3) To A.O. (4) Sushil Kumar Purohit AFPPP9680R I.T.O. Ward 48(2) Kol 3, Govt. Place West, Kolkata- 700001 ACIT, (Central) Circle-3, Jaipur 7. From the perusal of the aforesaid schedule it is clear that the assessee was assessed at I.T.O. Ward 48(2) Kolkata-3, Govt. Place West, Kolkata and the Pan Number of the assessee was AFPPP9680R. (4 of 4) [SAW-1124/2009] 8. In our considered opinion, the appeal deserves to be allowed. As the assessee was never assessed at Jaipur, hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside for want of jurisdiction. If at all, the department wants to initiate any proceedings, it will be open for them to initiate the proceedings before the Calcutta High Court which has jurisdiction in the matter. 9. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge is quashed and set aside. (INDERJEET SINGH),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J. Jyoti Item No.92 "