M/S. Nissan Polyplast v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4 Or His Successor....opponent(S

O/TAXAP/704/2008 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 704 of 2008 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER ================================================================ 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================================ M/S. NISSAN POLYPLAST....Appellant(s) Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4 OR HIS SUCCESSOR....Opponent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR SN DIVATIA, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR SUDHIR M MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERIandHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER Date : 16/10/2014 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) 1.By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 28.6.2006 passed by the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench ‘B’, Ahmedabad in ITA No. 2195/Ahd/2004 for A.Y. 2001-02. 2.While admitting this appeal, this Court has framed the following substantial question of law: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming that rental income of Rs. 4,62,000/- was liable to be assessed in view of the termsandconditionsoflease agreement?” 3.At the out-set it is required to be noted that admittedly the office of the Assessing Officer was situated at Daman and even the appellant-assessee is also carrying out the business at Daman. Considering the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sheth Banarasi Pass Gupta v. CIT, Delhi (Central) reported in 113 ITR 817 (Delhi), decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner O/TAXAP/704/2008 JUDGMENT of Income Tax v. Madanlal Co., reported in 2002 ITR 360 and the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Motoroal India Limited reported in 326 ITR 156, it is to be held that this Court would not have any jurisdiction to entertain the present Tax Appeal and the appellant would have to prefer appeal before the Bombay High Court. The learned advocates for the respective parties is not in a position to dispute the above. 4.Applying ratio laid down by the Delhi High Court, Karnataka High Court, Punjab and Haryana High Court in the aforesaid cases and the decision of this High Court in Tax Appeal No. 1779 of 2009, the present Tax Appeal is dismissed without further entering into the merits of the case and/or expressing anything on merits on the ground that against the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal, this Court would not have any jurisdiction. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the appellant to prefer appeal before the appropriate High Court i.e. in the present case Bombay High Court and as and when such proceedings are initiated, the same be considered in accordance with law and on merits. With this, the present appeal is dismissed. (K.S.JHAVERI, J.) mandora