9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prays for quashing the order dated 9.2.2015, Annexure P. 1 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'Friday', New Delhi whereby application for restoration of the appeal i.e. ITA No.428/Del/1997 filed by it against the order dated 26.9.2002 passed by the respondent has been dismissed. 3. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in CWP No.19055 of 2015 may be noticed. The petitioner company was ordered to be wound up by this court vide order dated 7.1.1999, Annexure P.2 in CP No.8 of 1998. The control of the petitioner company came in the hands of the Official Liquidator. The exmanagement of the petitioner company filed revival petition of the company i.e. CP No.6 of 2013 before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. Chairman CBDT for settlement of the claim. Since the details in CA No.222 of 2012 filed by the respondent were vague, the ex-management of the petitioner company moved an application i.e. CA No.393 of 2013 before this Court in August 2013, Annexure P.7 in the said liquidation petition for seeking the details of the orders/judgments and documents relating to the alleged claim of the respondent against the company. Vide order dated 28.1.2014, Annexure P.8, the court passed directions to the respondent to provide necessary documents to the ex-management of the petitioner company with respect to the claim of the respondent. The court also gave liberty to the ex-management of the petitioner company to challenge the orders being passed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l in ITA No.438/Del/1997 filed by the petitioner. The said appeal had been dismissed in default as nobody had appeared on behalf of the petitioner company on the dates of its hearing on 26.9.2002. Hence the instant writ petitions. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. In the present case, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 12, New Delhi is the Assessing Officer. During the course of hearing on 9.9.2015, in CWP No.19007 of 2015, learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to show as to how this court has jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier also, the writ petitions (CWP Nos.6383, 6382, 6398 and 6397 of 2015, M/s Asian consolidat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, the court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum convenience. The proposition of law enunciated in M/s Kusum Ingots's case (supra) is unexceptionable but has no applicability to the facts in hand. 7. Support was also drawn from the order of this Court passed in M/s Asian Consolidated Industries Limited's case (supra). However, that was a case qua dismissal of the appeal against the penalty proceedings on the ground of delay. In that case, the grievance of the petitioner stood redressed in view of the fact that the quantum proceedings had been decided in favour of the petitioner. As a result, the penalty proceedings did not survive. The order passed therein reads thus:- "The pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... torola India Ltd. decided on 03.10.2007, where the assessment was framed by the Assessing Officer at Bangalore, the Revenue in that case, had sought to justify the filing of the appeal in this Court on the ground that the assessee respondent had requested for transfer of the case from Bangalore to Gurgaon on 02.01.2002 and the case was transferred from Bangalore to Gurgaon on 20.05.2005 under Section 127 of the Act. The Division Bench of this Court, while repelling the aforesaid contention had noticed as under: "The decision of the High Courts are 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... more Assessing Officers subordinate to him to any other Assessing Officer. It also deals with the procedure when the case is transferred from one Assessing Officer subordinate to a Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner to an Assessing Officer who is not subordinate to the same Director General, Chief Commissioner or Commissioner. The aforementioned situation and the definition of expression 'case' in relation to jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer is quite understandable but it has got nothing to do with the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal or High Courts merely because Section 127 of the Act dealing with transfer has been incorporated in the same chapter. Therefore, the argument raised is completely devoi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
