Punjab & Haryana H.C : the jurisdiction to make assessment in respect of matters arising at Bombay had not been conferred or transferred to Delhi by reference to territory or persons or classes of persons or incomes or classes of income or cases or classes of cases as contemplated by s. 120

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana

CIT vs. H.F.C.L. Infotel Ltd.

Section 261A, 269

Asst. Year 1998-99

Satish Kumar Mittal & Rakesh Kumar Garg, JJ.

IT Appeal No. 473 of 2006

24th January, 2008

Counsel appeared : Sanjeev Bansal, for the Appellant

JUDGMENT

Satish Kumar Mittal, J. :

The Department has filed this appeal against the order dt. 14th Feb., 2006, passed by the Tribunal, Bench “A” Chennai, in ITA No. 66/Mad/2002, titled as the Dy. CIT vs. Investment Trust of India Ltd. pertaining to the asst. yr. 1998-99. In this appeal, not only the order was passed by the Chennai Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal'”), but the order of the Tribunal was also received in the office of CIT, Chennai, on 23rd March, 2006. Though in the appeal, it has not been disclosed as to why this appeal has been filed in this Court, but at the time of arguments, it was submitted that after the order passed by the Tribunal, the assessee has shifted its registered office within the jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, the appeal has been filed here. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the opinion that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this appeal against the order of the Chennai Bench, merely on the ground that after passing of the impugned order, the assessee has shifted its registered office from the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court to the jurisdiction of this Court. Sec. 269 of the IT Act, 1961, which falls under Chapter XX, dealing with appeals and revisions, provides that in this Chapter, “High Court” means (i) in relation to any State the High Court for that State. A similar question came up for consideration before the Delhi High Court in Suresh Desai & Associates vs. CIT (1998) 148 CTR (Del) 345 : (1998) 230 ITR 912 (Del), where it was held that the jurisdiction to make assessment in respect of matters arising at Bombay had not been conferred or transferred to Delhi by reference to territory or persons or classes of persons or incomes or classes of income or cases or classes of cases as contemplated by s. 120 of the Act. Such transfer of assessment cases for a few years other than the year in question had no relevance and no bearing on the territorial jurisdiction or competence of the High Court of Delhi to hear the application under s. 256 (2).

It was held that in such a situation, the jurisdiction vested in the High Court of Bombay and not in the High Court of Delhi. Again a similar question came for consideration before this Court in IT Appeal No. 44 of 2005, titled as CIT vs. Motorola India Ltd., which was decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 3rd Oct., 2007, [(2010) 326 ITR 156 (P&H)], wherein it was held as under (p. 161) :

“We have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the judgments and notifications on which reliance has been placed. It is undisputed that the returns dt. 29th Nov., 1996, and 12th Dec., 1996, were filed by the assesseerespondent at Bangalore and the assessment order dt. 31st March, 1999, was passed by the AO at Bangalore (A-1). Even the revisional order in exercise of jurisdiction under s. 263 of the Act was passed by the CIT at Bangalore. All other orders have been passed by the Revenue officers at Bangalore. Even the appeals before the Tribunal were decided on 29th June, 2004, at Bangalore. According to Note 4 under sub-r. (1) of r. 4 of the rules, it has been stipulated that ordinary jurisdiction of the Bench is to be determined not by the business or residence of the assessee but by the location of the office of the AO. This statutory guidance is available from the standing order dt. 16th Sept., 1997, passed under sub-r. (1) of r. 4 of the rules.”

4. In view of the aforesaid legal position, we are of the opinion that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. Therefore, this appeal is returned to the appellant with liberty to approach the High Court having the jurisdiction in the matter, if so advised.

[Citation : 326 ITR 167]