TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer at New Delhi and, therefore, this court would have jurisdiction to entertain these appeals - Decided in favour of Commissioner of Income Tax-X. - ITA Nos. 148/2012, ITA 149/2012 & ITA 2/2013 - - - Dated:- 2-7-2013 - Badar Durrez Ahmed And R. V. Easwar,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr N. P. Sahni For the Respondent : Mr C. S. Aggarwal, Sr Advocate with Mr Prakash Kumar, Ms Pushpa Sharma JUDGMENT Badar Durrez Ahmed, ACJ 1. These appeals (ITA No.149/2012, 148/2012 and 2/2013) relate to the assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2008-09, respectively. The first two appeals arise out of the common order dated 24.06.2011 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, in ITA Nos.179- 180/Asr/2011, respectively. The third appeal (ITA 2/2013) arises out of the order dated 27.07.2012 passed by the said Tribunal in ITA No.343/Asr/2011. All the three appeals have been preferred by the revenue. In the first two appeals pertaining to the assessment years 2005- 06 and 2006-07, condonation of delay applications have been filed. 2. When these matters came up for hearing before this Bench, the issue of jurisdiction was raised by the learned counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Alloys v. CIT: 333 ITR 335 (J K). In effect, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the respondent s claim for deduction under Section 80-IB(4) of the said Act. 6. Thereafter, the revenue filed an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar being ITA No.179/Asr/2011. It may be pointed out that as per the relevant Standing Order under the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 and, in particular, rule 4(1) thereof, the jurisdiction of the Amritsar Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal extended to, inter alia, the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The said Tribunal heard the appeal alongwith ITA No.180/Asr/2011 pertaining to the assessment year 2006-07 and dismissed both the appeals of the revenue by a common order dated 24.06.2011. The said Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Shree Balaji Alloys (supra) of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court. 7. Aggrieved by the order dated 24.06.2011, appeals (ITA Nos. 149/2012 and 148/2012) have been preferred before this court. Under similar circumstances, the Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal dismissed the revenue s appeal in respect of the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95. The assessment orders passed for the above two assessment years were assailed before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Meerut, who had dismissed the same on April 23, 1998. Appeals against the said order were filed before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at Delhi as the Tribunal located at Delhi was exercising jurisdiction even over territories falling in the adjoining State of Uttar Pradesh. The Tribunal eventually decided the appeal on October 28, 2004. In the meantime the assessment records for the assessment years 1988-89, 2000-01 and 2001-02 were transferred to Delhi in terms of an order passed under section 127 of the Income-tax Act. The question is, whether the said order of transfer would alter the course of events in so far as the filing of an appeal before the High Court competent to hear the same is concerned. In our view it does not. We say so because the forum of appeal is determined by reference to the situs of the Assessing Officer and not the Tribunal. The Division Bench decisions of this court in Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta s case [1978] 113 ITR 817 and in Suresh Desai s case [1998] 230 ITR 912 relied upon by Mr. Aggarwal su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... luding all proceedings which may be commenced after the date of the order or direction in respect of any year. In other words, the Explanation to section 127(4) of the Act talks of proceedings, past, present and future in respect of a person whose name is specified in the order or direction passed under section 127 of the Act and this would apply to any previous year. The order passed under section 127(2) of the Act clearly relates to the case of the assessee mentioned in the Schedule, and by virtue of the Explanation, all future proceedings that may be taken under the Act (obviously including an appeal under section 260A thereof) would now have to be in harmony with the order passed under section 127(2) of the Act. Consequently, the jurisdiction in respect of the case and the asses-see having been shifted from Lucknow to Delhi, the Revenue could file the appeal under section 260A of the Act only in Delhi and it could not have filed an appeal in the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. Learned counsel for the assessee relied upon two decisions of this court to contend that the situs of the Assessing Officer is what determines the jurisdiction of the High Court in respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal on July 22, 2005. Our conclusion follows from a plain reading of the Explanation to section 127(4) of the Act as well as from the effect of the order dated July 29, 2005, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Kanpur, under section 127(2) of the Act. Consequently, with effect from September 29, 2005, (the date from which the order passed under section 127(2) of the Act is enforced) the jurisdiction in respect of the assessee for future proceedings under section 260A of the Act is with the Delhi High Court. Admittedly, the present appeals have been filed after September 29, 2005, and so they would be maintainable in this court and no other High Court. Under the circumstances, we reject the contention of learned counsel for the assessee. 12. The important fact pointed out in Sahara India (supra) was that the decisions in Suresh Desai (supra) and Digvijay Chemicals (supra), 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 (supra), the relevant assessment year was 1980-81. But, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asis of the aforementioned reasoning, the Division Bench sustained the objection that the jurisdiction to entertain the application under sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 256 of the Act vested in the High Court of Bombay and not of Delhi. We are in respectful agreement with the aforementioned reasoning of the Delhi High Court. Accordingly, we hold that the preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the assessee-respondent is sustainable. It is true that transfer order under section 127 of the Act has been passed on May 20, 2005, but it would not affect the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer in respect of the assessment year 1996-97. The reliance of the Revenue on the Explanation to section 127 of the Act with regard to the meaning of the expression "case" is wholly misplaced and is liable to be rejected because section 120 of the Act does not deal with jurisdiction of the Tribunal or the High Court. After setting out the provisions of Section 120 and Section 127 of the said Act, the Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Motorola India (supra) observed as under:- A conjoint reading of the aforementioned provisions makes it evident that the Director Gener ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ra), which would enable us to take a view different from that taken by this court in Sahara India (supra). 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 260-A of the said Act 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. 15. In view of the foregoing, we hold that the present appeals are maintainable before this court. Consequently, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
