M/S. Ashoka Alloy Steels Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Simla And Another

Income Tax Appeal No. 69 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. --- Income Tax Appeal No. 69 of 2006Date of Decision: 30.11.2010 M/s. Ashoka Alloy Steels Ltd --- Appellant Versus Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) Simla and another --- Respondents === CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. --- PRESENT:Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocatefor the appellant. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Standing Counselfor the respondents. --- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961(for short “the Act’”) has been filed by the assessee against the orderdated 20.5.2005, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Chandigarh Bench ‘B’, Chandigarh (in short “the Tribunal”) in ITA Nos.718/CHANDI/2002 relating to the assessment year 1996-97. It is not necessary to notice the facts as the first and theforemost question that has cropped up during the course of hearing iswhether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicatethis appeal. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perusedthe record. In the present case, the order under Section 201(1A) of theAct was passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, SpecialRange, Shimla (H.P.). The appeal preferred by the assessee wasallowed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Simla[hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] vide order dated 20.8.2002. Further,appeal of the Revenue was accepted by the Tribunal on 20.5.2005. Inthe present appeal, filed by the assessee, a specific query was put to thecounsel for the appellant that when the order under Section 201(1A) ofthe Act had been passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax,Special Range, Shimla (H.P.), how this Court had territorial jurisdiction toentertain the appeal and adjudicate the controversy raised. The learnedcounsel for the assessee could not dispute that fact and offer anysatisfactory explanation there for. It has been held by the Karnatka HighCourt in Big Apple Computers v. Commissioner of Customs andCentral Excise, (2007) 207 ELT 36 that for filing an appeal thejurisdiction of the High Court emanates from the assessing officer whoexercises jurisdiction over the assessee. The Delhi High Court in SethBanarsi Dass Gupta v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi(Central), (1978) 113 ITR 817 and the Apex Court in AmbicaIndustries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2007(6) SCC 769 hasheld to the same effect. Since the territorial jurisdiction laid with the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range, Shimla (H.P.), this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the presentappeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for lack of territorialjurisdiction with liberty to present the same before the court of competentjurisdiction, if so advised. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)JUDGE November 30, 2010*rkmalik* (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)JUDGE