The Tax Publishers2013 TaxPub(DT) 2096 (Del-HC) : (2013) 357 ITR 0542 : (2013) 262 CTR 0001 : (2013) 090 DTR 0274

Income Tax Act, 1961

--Appeal [High Court]Maintainability Jurisdiction of relevant High Court--When appeal came up for hearing, jurisdiction of Delhi High Court to hear this appeal' was challenged by assessee. It was contended 64 of assessee that this court did not have jurisdiction to entertain these appeals, inasmuch as assessment order was passed by assessing officer in Jammu, the appellate order was passed by Commissioner (Appeals) at Jammu and the Tribunal's order was also of Amritsar Bench of Tribunal which had Jurisdiction in respect of appeals from inter alia, the State of Jammu and Kashmir. It was, therefore, contended that High Court having Jurisdiction over the assessing officer at Jammu, who passed assessment order would have jurisdiction and not this court. Held: Assessee's contention was not applicable. At the point of time when present appeals were filed, assessing officer insofar as all the cases of assessee were concerned, was the assessing officer at Delhi. The fact that the Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal had passed the impugned orders or the fact that the initial assessment orders were passed by the assessing officer at Jammu would not be relevant for the purposes of determining the jurisdiction of the court at the point of time at which an appeal under section 260A was filed.

The important fact pointed out in Sahara India was that the decisions in Suresh Desai and Digvijay Chemicals, even though they involved a transfer of jurisdiction from one place to another, the proceedings in respect of the relevant previous years had not been transferred from one jurisdiction to another. For example, in Suresh Desai, the relevant assessment year was 1980-81. But, the transfer did not pertain to the assessment year 1980-81. In Digvijay Chemicals, the relevant assessment year was 1993-94, but the assessment records, which were transferred to Delhi pertained to the assessment years 1988-89, 2000-01 and 2001-02. In other words, the assessment records for the relevant assessment years had not been transferred in those cases and, obviously, the question of considering the provisions of the Explanation to section 127(4) which explained the meaning of the word 'case', had not been considered in those decisions. [Para 12] The point in issue in the present case is entirely covered by the decision in the case of Sahara India. [Para 13] This court is afraid and with respect this court say so that this Court are unable to agree with the views expressed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court and are bound to follow the decision of this court in Sahara India. This court is not inclined to accept the view taken by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, because while it is true that the reference to the case is with regard to the jurisdiction of an income-tax authority, it is also true that the jurisdiction of the High Court is determined by the situs of the assessing officer. When the assessing officer itself has been changed from one place to another, the High Court exercising jurisdiction in respect of the territory covered by the transferee assessing officer would be the one which would have jurisdiction to hear the appeal under section 260A. Even in Ambica Industries, a decision relied upon by the counsel for the respondent / assessee, it has been held that it would be the situs of the assessing officer and not the situs of the Tribunal which would have the determinative factor with regard to the jurisdiction of the High Court hearing an appeal. Of course, the decision in Ambica Industries was not one rendered under the Income Tax Act, but was one which pertained to an appeal to the High Court under the Central Excise Act, 1944. It may also point out that the Central Excise Act does not deal with a transfer of a 'case' as is the position under the Income Tax Act. In any event, there is nothing in Ambica Industries, which would enable us to take a view different from that taken by this court in Sahara India. It is a well accepted principle that there can be only one assessing officer in respect of a case. At the point of time when the present appeals were filed, the assessing officer insofar as all the cases of the respondent were concerned, was the assessing officer at Delhi. The fact that the Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal had passed the impugned orders or the fact that the initial assessment orders were passed by the assessing officer at Jammu would not be relevant for the purposes of determining the jurisdiction of the court at the point of time at which an appeal under section 260A is filed. It is the date on which the appeal is filed which would be the material point of time for considering as to in which court the appeal is to be filed. On the dates on which the present appeals were filed, the assessing officer of the respondent was the assessing officer at New Delhi and, therefore, this court would have jurisdiction to entertain these appeals. [Para 14] In view of the foregoing, the present appeals are maintainable before this court. Consequently, the appeals be listed before the roster bench hearing such matters on 22-7-2013 when the appeals would be taken up for admission as well as for consideration of the pending condonation of delay applications in two of the appeals. [Para 15]

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

TaxPublishers.in

'Kedarnath', 7, Avadh Vihar, Near Nirali Dhani,

Chopasni Road

Jodhpur - 342 008 (Rajasthan) INDIA

Phones : 9785602619 (11 am - 5 pm)

E-Mail : mail@taxpublishers.in / mail.taxpublishers@gmail.com