Alta Vista Info Solutions Pvt Ltd & Anr. Vs PCIT (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Alta Vista Info Solutions Pvt Ltd and another, challenging the centralisation of their assessment with the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT)/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT) (Central), Circle-01, Faridabad. The petitioners had contested the transfer on grounds of geographical jurisdiction and lack of stated reasons for the centralisation.
The petitioners argued that their registered office is in New Delhi, and therefore, their assessment jurisdiction should not be transferred to an income tax authority outside New Delhi. They further contended that they had no establishment or connection with Faridabad, making the transfer inconvenient and unwarranted. Additionally, they claimed no relationship with Shri Pavel Garg, in whose case a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was conducted on June 29, 2022, which led to the centralisation.
However, the Revenue highlighted several undisputed facts that linked the petitioners to Shri Pavel Garg. The court noted that Shri Pavel Garg serves as a director on the board of both petitioner companies, signed the return of petitioner no. 1 for Assessment Year 2020-21, and also signed the resolution authorising the present petition, which he further supported with an affidavit. These facts contradicted the petitioners’ claim of no connection with Shri Pavel Garg.
Furthermore, it was brought to the court’s attention that one of the petitioner’s units, a factory, is located in Sonipat, Haryana, thereby establishing a geographical link to the region where the Faridabad office exercises jurisdiction.
The Revenue also presented an Office Order dated October 31, 2014, which delineates the jurisdiction of various income tax officials, including those covering the State of Haryana. This order confirmed that the DCIT/ACIT (Central)-1, Faridabad, falls under the purview of the Pr. CIT/CIT (Central), Gurgaon, which covers Haryana.
The High Court observed that the impugned orders explicitly stated the reason for centralisation: for the purpose of coordinated investigation and assessment proceedings following the search and seizure operations conducted in the case of Shri Pavel Garg and others. Given the established connections between the petitioners and Shri Pavel Garg, the court found the centralisation to be in order.
The court ultimately found no infirmity with the impugned orders and consequently dismissed the petition, along with any pending applications. This ruling reinforces the tax authorities’ power to centralise assessments for coordinated investigations, particularly when links to search operations are established.
