TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct"), against the order dated June 29, 2004, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, (for brevity, "the Tribunal"), in I. T. A. No. 136(Bang)/2000, in respect of the assessment year 1996-97. It is claimed that the following substantial questions of law would arise for determination of this court : "a. Whether the Tribunal has erred in law in holding that the order of the Assessing Officer was not prejudicial and erroneous to the interests of the Revenue wherein the relief under section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was allowed on the total income without adjusting the brought forward loss and unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier years ? b. Whether the Tribunal has erred in law in vacating the order under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?" 2. The brief facts of the case are that on November 29, 1996, the assessee filed its return of income before the Assessing Officer-cum-Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Asstt.), Special Range-I, Bangalore, declaring its total income of Rs. 3,50,30,300, in respect of the assessment year 1996-97 (A-I). Thereafter, a revised return was filed on December 12, 1996, in which the declared income was the same. The ret ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it is having eligible units and also several other ineligible units. While computing the profits of the eligible unit for the purpose of deduction working out relief under section 80HHC of the Act, it is the eligible unit alone which has to be seen. After having computed profits of the industrial undertaking, deduction under section 80HHC of the Act has to be computed and thereafter other provisions like set off of unabsorbed depreciation and the carried forward depreciation were to arise based on the principle laid down by the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. H. M. T. Ltd. [1993] 199 ITR 235, and also the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Shirke Construction Equipments Ltd. [2000] 246 ITR 429. In the light of these decisions, the assessee has, inter alia, claimed that the order of the Assessing Officer cannot be considered as erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. However, we need not to go into the merits of the controversy in view of a preliminary objection canvassed by the assessee. 6. Mr. C. S. Aggarwal, learned senior counsel at the outset has raised a preliminary objection concerning the maintainability of these appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnot be construed to mean that it would relate to the assessment year 1996-97 because the assessment in respect of that year was framed by the Assessing Officer at Bangalore. In that regard Mr. Aggarwal has placed reliance on a judgment of this court in the case of Lt. Col. Paramjit Singh v. CIT [1996] 220 ITR 446. He has then relied upon on the standing order of the President, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, dated September 16, 1997, issued in pursuance of sub-rule (1) of rule 4 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 (for brevity, "the Rules") and supported his submission by relying upon the judgments of the Delhi High Court in the cases of Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta v. CIT [1978] 113 ITR 817 and Suresh Desai and Associates v. CIT [1998] 230 ITR 912 (Delhi) and a judgment of the Patna High Court in the case of CIT v. Justice S. B. Sinha [1999] 237 ITR 268. 7. On the merits also learned counsel for the assessee-respondent has made submissions but in view of the preliminary objection raised, we are not opining on the merits and would prefer to first decide the preliminary objection. 8. Mr. Yogesh Putney, learned counsel for the Revenue-appellant, has submitted that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 96, were filed by the assessee-respondent at Bangalore and the assessment order dated March 31, 1999, was passed by the Assessing Officer at Bangalore (A-I). Even the revisional order in exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act was passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax at Bangalore. All other orders have been passed by the Revenue officers at Bangalore. Even the appeals before the Tribunal were decided on June 29, 2004 at Bangalore. According to Note 4 under sub-rule (1) of rule 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 Assessing Officer. This statutory guidance is available from the Standing Order dated September 16, 1997, passed under sub-rule (1) of rule 4 of the Rules. 11. Moreover, the aforementioned legal position has been laid down by the Delhi High Court in the cases of Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta [1978] 113 ITR 817 (Delhi) and Suresh Desai and Associates [1998] 230 ITR 912 (Delhi). In the case of Suresh Desai and Associates [1998] 230 ITR 912 (Delhi), assess-ment in respect of the assessment year 1980-81 was framed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the jurisdiction of the High Court to which the question of law arising out of the order should be referred cannot be accepted. Reference cannot be made to the High Court of Delhi merely because the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court heard the appeal." 12. The Division Bench also placed reliance on another Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Birla Cotton, Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 354. The Division Bench also held that the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal extends over several States though each of such States has its own High Court. The decision of the High Court is binding on the subordinate courts and authorities or Tribunals under its superintendence throughout the territory in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction but it does not extend beyond its territorial jurisdiction. In other words, the decision of one High Court is not a binding precedent for another High Court or for courts or tribunals outside its territorial jurisdiction. The doctrine of precedents and the rule of binding efficacy of the law laid down by the High Court within its territoria ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me-tax authority to issue orders in writing for the exercise of the powers and performance of the functions by all or any of the other income-tax authorities who are subordinate to it. (3) In issuing the directions or orders referred to in sub-sections (1) and (2), the Board or other income-tax authority authorised by it may have regard to any one or more of the following criteria, namely :- (a) territorial area ; (b) persons or classes of persons ; (c) incomes or classes of income ; and (d) cases or classes of cases. (4) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2), the Board may, by general or special order, and subject to such conditions, restrictions or limitations as may be specified therein,- (a) authorise any Director General or Director to perform such functions of any other income-tax authority as may be assigned to him by the Board ; (b) empower the Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner to issue orders in writing that the powers and functions conferred on, or, as the case may be, assigned to, the Assessing Officer by or under this Act in respect of any specified area or persons or classes of persons or incomes or clas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ansfer any case from one or more Assessing Officers subordinate to him (whether with or without con-current jurisdiction) to any other Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) also subordinate to him. (2) Where the Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers from whom the case is to be transferred and the Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers to whom the case is to be transferred are not subordinate to the same Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner,- (a) where the Directors General or Chief Commissioners or Commissioners to whom such Assessing Officers are subordinate are in agreement, then the Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner from whose jurisdiction the case is to be transferred may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, pass the order ; (b) where the Directors General or Chief Commissioners or Commissioners aforesaid are not in agreement, the order transferring the case may, similarly, be passed by the Board or any such Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
