TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 785X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HAT:- This issue is no longer res integra and has been answered by the Division Bench of this Court in A.B.C. India Limited [ 2002 (3) TMI 35 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT ] revenue's reference application under Section 256(1) of the Act was rejected by the Tribunal at Guwahati. Subsequently, the assessments were transferred to the Commissioner under the jurisdiction of the High Court at Calcutta. The High Court at Calcutta passed order under Section 256(2) and the assessee prayed to recall of the said order contending that the said order was passed without jurisdiction. The said submission made by the assessee was sustained by the Division Bench holding that the question of cause of action would be irrelevant since the Court would be determini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 269 which provides that the High Court means in relation to any State, the High Court for that State. We hold these appeals are not maintainable before this Court as submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee in respect of an appeal filed in the assessee's group company's case [ 2020 (1) TMI 1541 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] - Similar objection was raised by the assessee and the same was sustained by order dated 28th January 2020 and the appeal was dismissed as not entertainable on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. In the light of the above, we hold that all these appeals are not maintainable and consequently, the applications for condonation of delay as well as the appeals are rejected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Delhi Tribunal over which this Court would not have any jurisdiction. It is further pointed out that in the case of the assessee's group company, namely M/s. Canton Traders Private Limited, the revenue had filed an appeal before this Court in ITAT 123 of 2019 challenging the order passed by the Delhi Tribunal. The Division Bench by order dated 28th January, 2020 held that this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. Further, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. A.B.C. India Ltd. reported in [2003] 126 Taxman 18 (CAL) and the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. J.L. Morrison (Indi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e prayed to recall of the said order contending that the said order was passed without jurisdiction. The said submission made by the assessee was sustained by the Division Bench holding that the question of cause of action would be irrelevant since the Court would be determining the question since determined by the Tribunal of another State which, according to law, is bound by the decision of the Supreme Court at the first place and then by the decision by the jurisdictional High Court. The decision in ABC India Ltd. was followed in J.L. Morrison India and it was pointed out that if the High Court of Calcutta was to exercise jurisdiction over the order passed by the Tribunal located outside the jurisdiction of this Court, which would create ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
