TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9007 and 19055 of 2015 as according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the issue involved in both the petitions is identical. However, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.19055 of 2015. 2. In CWP No.19055 of 2015, the petitioner 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 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A No.222 of 2012 by referring the said revival petition i.e. CP No.6 of 2013 had passed the necessary directions with respect to the outstanding demand of the respondent. The Court gave liberty to the petitioner to approach the income tax department i.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 r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er has also filed status report of the outstanding amount in CA No.365 of 2014 in CP No.6 of 2013. According to the petitioner, the present impugned order dated 9.2.2015 was concerned with the ex parte order dated 26.9.2002, Annexure P.12 passed by the Tribunal 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 f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erved therein that even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, 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 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e cannot derive advantage from the order dated 30.7.2015, Annexure P.14 or from the judgment of the Apex Court in Kusum Ingots and Alloys Limited's case (supra) being on different situation. 8. In ITA No.44 of 2005 titled as The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad Vs. M/s Motorola 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 repell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liminary objection raised by learned counsel for the assessee-respondent is sustainable. xxxx xxxx xxxx A conjoint reading of the aforementioned provisions makes it evident that the Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner is empowered to transfer any case from one or 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
