Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chandigarh-Ii v. H.f.c.l. Infotel Limited, Mohali

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No. 473 of 2006DATE OF DECISION : 24.01.2008 Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh-II .... APPELLANT Versus H.F.C.L. Infotel Limited, Mohali ..... RESPONDENT CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTALHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present:Mr. Sanjeev Bansal, Advocate, for the appellant-revenue. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. ( Oral ) The Department has filed this appeal against the order dated14.2.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench `A'Chennai, in ITA No. 66/Mds/2002, titled as the Deputy Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Chennai versus M/s the Investment Trust of India Ltd.,Chennai, pertaining to the assessment year 1998-1999. In this appeal, not only the order was passed by the ChennaiBench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as `theITAT'), but the order of the ITAT was also received in the office of CIT,Chennai, on 23.3.2006. Though in the appeal, it has not been disclosed as towhy this appeal has been filed in this Court, but at the time of arguments, it was submitted that after the order passed by the ITAT, the assessee hasshifted its registered office within the jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore,the appeal has been filed here. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for theappellant, we are of the opinion that this Court has no jurisdiction toentertain this appeal against the order of the Chennai Bench, merely on theground that after passing of the impugned order, the assessee has shifted itsregistered office from the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court to thejurisdiction of this Court. Section 269 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, whichfalls under Chapter XX, dealing with Appeals and Revisions, provides thatin this Chapter, “High Court” means (i) in relation to any State the HighCourt for that State. The similar question came up for consideration beforethe Delhi High Court inSuresh Desai and Associatesv. Commissioner of Income-tax,(1998) 230 ITR 912, where it was held that the jurisdiction tomake assessment in respect of matters arising at Bombay had not beenconferred or transferred to Delhi by reference to territory or persons orclasses of persons or incomes or classes of income or cases or classes ofcases as contemplated by Section 120 of the Act. Such transfer ofassessment cases for a few years other than the year in question had norelevance and no bearing on the territorial jurisdiction competence of theHigh Court of Delhi to hear the application under Section 256 (2). It washeld that in such situation, the jurisdiction vested in the High Court ofBombay and not in the High Court of Delhi. Again a similar question came for consideration before this Court in ITA No. 44 of 2005, titled as “TheCommissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad versus M/s Motorola India Ltd.”,which was decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 3.10.2007, whereinit was held as under :- for consideration before this Court in ITA No. 44 of 2005, titled as “TheCommissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad versus M/s Motorola India Ltd.”,which was decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 3.10.2007, whereinit was held as under :- “We have thoughtfully considered the submissions madeby the learned counsel for the parties and have also gonethrough the judgments and notifications on which reliance hasbeen placed. It is undisputed that the returns dated 29.11.1996and 12.12.1996 were filed by the assessee-respondent atBangalore and the assessment order dated 31.3.1999 waspassed by the Assessing Officer at Bangalore (A-1). Even therevisional order in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 ofthe Act was passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax atBangalore. All other orders have been passed by the revenueofficers at Bangalore. Even the appeals before the Tribunalwere decided on 29.6.2004 at Bangalore. According to Note 4under sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the Rules, it has been stipulatedthat ordinary jurisdiction of the Bench is to be determined notby the business or residence of the assessee but by the locationof the office of the Assessing Officer. This statutory guidance isavailable from the standing order dated 16.9.1997, passed undersub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the Rules.” In view of the aforesaid legal position, we are of the opinion that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. Therefore, thisappeal is returned to the appellant with liberty to approach the High Courthaving the jurisdiction in the matter, if so advised. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )JUDGE January 24, 2008 nk/ndj ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG )JUDGE