High Court Of Calcutta
C.E.S.C. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors.
Sections 148, 163, Art. 226
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.
Writ Petn. No. 598 of 2001
10th September, 2001
Counsel Appeared
Dr. Pal, for the Petitioners
JUDGMENT
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. :
The facts of this case are similar and identical to that of the judgment delivered by me in WP No. 4840(W) of 2001, Ispat Industries Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT & Ors. [reported at (2002) 172 CTR (Cal) 128— Ed.]. In my opinion this High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this application and accordingly, this application is also dismissed.
2. I have also considered the judgments referred before me by Dr. Pal, appearing on behalf of the petitioners which are reported in CIT vs. Alfred Herbert (India) (P) Ltd. (1986) 52 CTR (Cal) 321 : (1986) 159 ITR 583 (Cal); Y. Narayana Chetty vs. ITO (1959) 35 ITR 388 (SC) ; Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC) ; Mohindra Mohan Sirkar vs. ITO (1978) 112 ITR 47 (Cal); CIT & Ors. vs. Oriental Rubber Works (1984) 38 CTR (SC) 154 : (1984) 145 ITR 477 (SC); ITO vs. Ch. Atchaiah (1996) 130 CTR (SC) 404 : (1996) 218 ITR 239 (SC) and Raza Textiles Ltd. vs. ITO 1973 CTR (SC) 238 : (1973) 87 ITR 539 (SC). In my opinion, the said judgments do not help the petitioners in the facts and circumstances of this case. The question arises in this application whether the notice served under s. 148 of the IT Act dt. 8th March, 2001, by the Dy. CIT, Circle 2 (6), Mumbai, that he has reason to believe that the income of the Linklaters and Paines, a firm of the UK, chargeable to tax for the asst. yr. 1998-99 has escaped assessment within the meaning of s. 147 of the said Act and the petitioner was called upon to file a return in respect of the income of the said non-resident firm as its alleged agent. The petitioner has also challenged an order passed by the said Dy. CIT under s. 163 of the Act by which the petitioner-company has been treated as an agent in relation to the said firm for the asst. yr. 1998-99.
3. The question arose in this application whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this application as the point has been taken by the respondents that no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court and mere serving of the notice does not give any territorial jurisdiction to this Court to entertain this application. The other point taken by the respondent authority that this order has been passed under s. 163 of the said Act. The petitioner has a right of appeal from the said order under the code. The same points also arose in the writ petition being WP No. 4840(W) of 2001 [Ispat Industries Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (supra)] and I have duly dealt with the same points and the facts are identical. Therefore, I am bound by my judgment delivered by me in the said matter and accordingly, I hold that mere service of the notice on the petitioner also cannot constitute a part of the cause of action in respect of this matter and accordingly this application is dismissed and I hold that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this application. I further hold that since there is an alternative remedy against the order passed by the said authorities under s. 163 of the said Act, the petitioner has a right to prefer an appeal before the authorities and accordingly, this Court cannot interfere on that ground also. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this application is also dismissed, however, without any costs.
[Citation : 263 ITR 382]
