TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 395X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal at Hyderabad. Since the initial process of assessment was started at Hyderabad and the final assessment was framed by the Assessing Officer at Hyderabad, this court lacks territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. In view of the above, this court has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the lis over an order passed by the Assessing Officer, i.e. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad, the complete paper book of appeal - ITA No. 1 of 2016 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 23-4-2016 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MR. DARSHAN SINGH, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. Tajender K.Joshi, Advocate For The Respondent : Mr. Rishab Kapoor, Advocate Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. 1. This appeal has been preferre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laiming deduction under sections 80HHC and 80IB of the Act. Assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 29.12.2006, Annexure A.2 at a total income of Rs. 43,03,52,979/-. The assessee had claimed deduction under section 80IB of the Act on the profits and gains derived from the industrial unit situated at Silvassa to the tune of Rs. 1,90,96,190/- and also claimed deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act amounting to Rs. 85,40,817/- on the profits derived from exports made from all the divisions including industrial unit of Silvassa. The Assessing Officer, in view of the provisions contained in section 80IB(13) read with section 801A(9) of the Act reduced the deduction of Rs. 1,93,22,532/- allowable under section 80IB of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f total addition of Rs. 2,45,98,456/- involving export of manufactured goods and confirmed the addition on account of transfer pricing adjustments towards commission payment of Rs. 20,60,722/-. Not satisfied with the order, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The department also filed cross appeal. Vide order dated 27.3.2015, Annexure A.4, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and dismissed the revenue's appeal as infructuous. Hence the instant appeal by the revenue. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. After perusing the averments made in the appeal and hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find that the initial order dated 21.12.2006, Annexure A.1 under Section 92CA(3) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l 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 rule of binding efficacy of law laid down by the High Court within its territorial jurisdiction, the questions of law arising out of decision in a reference, has to be determined by the High Court which exercises territorial jurisdiction over the situs of the Assessing Officer and if it was otherwise then it would result in serious anomalies as an assessee affected by an assessment order at Bombay may invoke the jurisdiction of Delhi High Court to take advantage of a suitable decision taken by it. Thus, such an assessee may avoid appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tance and we have no hesitation to reject the same. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed by sustaining the preliminary objection that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction over an order passed by the Assessing Officer at Bangalore. Accordingly, these appeals are returned to the revenue appellant for their filing before the competent court of jurisdiction in accordance with law. Similar order was passed by this Court in ITA No.49 of 2012 [ Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Gurgaon vs. M/s Parabolic Drugs Limited], decided on 11.10.2012. 5. In view of the above, this court has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the lis over an order passed by the Assessing Officer, i.e. Deputy Commissioner of Income T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
