TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er 29, 2005, (the date from which the order passed u/s 127(2) of the Act is enforced) the jurisdiction in respect of the assessee for future proceedings u/s 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. Thus, we reject the contention of learned counsel for the assessee. - Madan B. Lokur And V. B. Gupta JJ. For the Appellant : R. D. Jolly with Ms. Sonia Mathur For the Respondent : Perci Pardiwala with Aarohi Bhalla JUDGMENT MADAN B. LOKUR J. 1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated July 22, 2005, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench A, Lucknow (for short the Tribunal ) in I. T. A. No. 476/LUC/2001, C. O. No. 133/LUC/2004 and I. T. A. No. 709/LUC/2002. The decision in a fourth appeal decided by the Tribunal, being I. T. A. No. 304/LUC/2001, is not under challenge. All these appeals pertain to the assessment year 1996-97. 2. Learned counsel for the assessee raised a preliminary objection to the effect that this court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain thes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Commissioner as the Board may, by notification in the Official Gazette, authorize in this behalf. (3) . . . . . (4) The transfer of a case under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) may be made at any stage of the proceedings, and shall not render necessary the re-issue of any notice already issued by the Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers from whom the case is transferred. Explanation. In section 120 and this section, the word ' case', in relation to any person whose name is specified in any order or direction issued thereunder, means all proceedings under this Act in respect of any year which may be pending on the date of such order or direction or which may have been completed on or before such date, and includes also all proceedings under this Act which may be commenced after the date of such order or direction in respect of any year. 7. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it broadly clear that the Director-General or the Chief Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner of Income-tax (Central), Kanpur. Without going into the reasons for rejecting the objections, the operative portion of the order dated July 29, 2005, is reproduced below : 10. In view of the above, the objections raised by the assessee against the proposed transfer of its case to New Delhi are not found tenable and are accordingly rejected. 11. Accordingly, by virtue of power conferred by sub-section (2) of section 127 of the Income-tax Act and all other powers enabling me in the behalf, I, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Kanpur hereby transfer the case, the particulars of which are mentioned here under in Col. 1 to 3 of the schedule appended below from the Assess ing Officer mentioned in Col. 4 to the Assessing Officer mentioned in Col. 5 thereof: - Schedule Sl. No. Name address of the assessee PAN/GIR No. From Assessing Officer To Assessing Officer 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. M/s.Sahara India Financial Corporation Ltd., Sahara India Bhawan, 1, Kapoorthala Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 assessee 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. 14. 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 of entertaining an appeal under section 260A of the Act. In support of his argument, learned counsel relied upon Suresh Desai and Associates v. CIT [1998] 230 ITR 912 (Delhi) and CIT v. Digvijay Chemicals Ltd. [2007] 294 ITR 359 (Delhi). 15. We have gone through both these decisions with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties and while the accepted general principle is that the situs of the Assessing Officer is what determines the High Court having jurisdiction over the case, none of these decisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A 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. 18. Under the circumstances, we reject the contention of learned counsel for the assessee. 19. In so far as the merits of the case are concerned, the Revenue has raised several issues and we are of the view that except one issue which is based on the facts, the other issues raise substantial questions of law. 20. The issue that does not raise any substantial question of law pertains to the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 43B of the Act of Rs. 7,38,563. The Tribunal has noted in paragraph 67 of its order that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had verified the date of the challans and other documents before deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Since this conclusion is based on a finding of fact, no substantial question of law arises. 21. In respect of the other issues, we admit this appeal and frame the following questions of law : 1. Whether, on a correct interpretation of section 68 of the Income- tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
