Delhi ITAT Had No Power to Dismiss Transferred Appeal | HC

Case Details: Sahara India Ltd vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal [2026] 183 taxmann.com 179 (Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Dinesh Mehta & Vinod Kumar, JJ.
• Percy J. Pardiwala, Sr. Adv., Satyen Sethi, Arta Trana Panda, Sanjeeva Ku. Gupta & Naresh Kapila, Advs. for the Petitioner.
• Ruchir Bhatia, SSC, Anant Mann, Pratksh Gupta, JSCs & Ms Lopamudra Mahapatra, Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The assessee had filed an appeal before the Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Pursuant to a notice issued under section 127(2), the cases of the Sahara Group pending before various authorities were transferred to Delhi for administrative convenience. Consequently, the President of the Tribunal, in exercise of powers under rule 4 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, transferred the assessee’s appeal from the Lucknow Bench to the Delhi Bench.

Thereafter, the Delhi Bench dismissed the appeal as well as the corresponding cross-objection on the ground that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the matter, while granting liberty to the parties to file fresh appeals before the Lucknow Bench. Aggrieved, the assessee filed writ petitions before the Delhi High Court challenging the dismissal of the appeals.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the Delhi Bench was fully aware that the appeals had been transferred pursuant to the President of the Tribunal’s administrative order. It held that once a matter is transferred from one Bench to another, no statutory authority, including the Tribunal, can overturn such an administrative order except a competent court examining its legality.

The Court further held that even if the Delhi Bench was of the view that it lacked territorial jurisdiction, it ought to have placed the matter before the President for appropriate directions, rather than dismissing the appeals and directing the parties to institute fresh proceedings. Such action amounted to setting the President’s administrative order at nought and was unsustainable in law.

Accordingly, the High Court set aside the orders passed by the Tribunal and restored the matters to the file of the Delhi Bench to be decided on merits. The writ petitions were allowed in favour of the assessee.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Pr. CIT v. ABC Papers Ltd. [2022] 141 taxmann.com 332/289 Taxman 150/447 ITR 1 (SC) (para 19) Distinguished.

List of Cases Referred to

• Pr. CIT v. ABC Papers Ltd. [2022] 141 taxmann.com 332/289 Taxman 150/447 ITR 1 (SC) (para 7).