O/Taxap/1480/2009 Judgment v. Sd/-(M.r.shah, J

O/TAXAP/1480/2009 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADTAX APPEAL NO. 1480 of 2009 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH sd/- and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.D.KOTHARI sd/- ============================================= 1.Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be NOallowed to see the judgment ?2.To be referred to the Reporter or not ?NO3.Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy NOof the judgment ?4.Whether this case involves a substantial question NOof law as 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 ?NO=============================================COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX....Appellant(s)VersusSIDDH INTERNATIONAL....Opponent(s) ============================================= Appearance: MR SUDHIR M MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ============================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAHand HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.D.KOTHARI Date : 21/12/2013 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1.0.Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the “ITAT”) dated 6.2.2009 passed in ITA No.1735/AHD/2008 for AY 2000-01, the appellant-revenue Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad has preferred present Tax Appeal. 2.0.At the outset, it is required to be noted that admittedly the office of the Assessing Officer was situated at Nani Daman and even the respondent-assessee is also carrying out the business at Nani Daman. Considering the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sheth Banarsi Pass Gupta vs. CIT, Delhi (Central) reported in 113 ITR 817 (Delhi), decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Madanlal Co. reported in 2002 ITR 360 and the decision of the Punjab and Hariyana 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. Learned advocates for the respective parties is not in a position to dispute the above. 3.0.Applying ratio laid down by the Delhi High Court, Karnataka High Court and Punjab and Hariyana High Court in the aforesaid cases, 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 ITAT, 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, present appeal is dismissed. sd/-(M.R.SHAH, J.) sd/-(R.D.KOTHARI, J.)