Rajendra Menon) (C v. Sirpurkar) Judge Judge

ITA No.63/2014 4/2/2015. Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for theappellant.Shri L. L. Sharma, learned counsel for therespondent. Office has pointed out that this appealunder Section 260A of the Income Tax Act before theHigh Court at Jabalpur is not maintainable. It isindicated by the office that the assessment orderAnnexure A/1 was passed on 22.12.2011 by theIncome Tax Department at Ahmedabad by theIncome Tax Officer, OSD-II, Range-II, Ahmedabad.Against this order an appeal was filed by theassessee before the office of the Commissioner,Income Tax Appeals, Ahmedabad and the saidAppellate Authority decided the appeal atAhmedabad vide Annexure A/2 on 25[th] of June, 2012.Thereafter, the matter went to the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Ahmedabad and theimpugned order Annexure A/3 has been passed bythe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad on16.8.2013. At the relevant point of time when allthese assessment proceedings were held, businessestablishment of the assessee was situated in 78New Cloth Market, Raipur Gate Ahmedabad. Onthese grounds office has indicated that this appealunder Section 260A before the M.P. High Court,Jabalpur is not maintainable. To explain theaforesaid position and clarify the question of maintainability of this appeal, I.A. NO.4929/2014 hasbeen filed by the Revenue and it is only indicated inthis application that after the matter was so decidedvide order dated 24.9.2012, the Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Ahmedabad has transferred the entirerecord of the case to the Income Tax Officer, Vidishaand as records are now available in with the IncomeTax Officer, Vidisha, this Court has jurisdiction todeal with the matter. We have considered the contentions of theappellant and objection of the assessee representedby Shri Sharma in the matter of territorialjurisdiction. Admittedly, the orders of assessment, theorders by the Appellate Authority and the order bythe Appellate Tribunal as indicated herein abovewere passed in the State of Gujarat at Ahmedabad.At the relevant point of time for which theassessment was done the assessee was having itsbusiness establishment in the city of Ahmedabad.Merely because after the assessment orders werepassed, the entire records have been transferred tothe office at Vidisha that itself will not givejurisdiction to this Court to deal with the matter asthe dispute and the lis which is a subject matter inthis appeal pertains to assessment done inAhmedabad and orders of the appellate authorityand appellate Tribunal passed at Ahmedabad at apoint of time when the business activity was alsoundertaken at Ahmedabad. In fact, no “cause of mrs.mishra action” or “part of the cause of action” pertaining topassing of the impugned orders arose within theterritorial jurisdiction of this Court. Mere transferof the record from Ahmedabad to Vidisha on asubsequent date will not give rise to any cause ofaction to give jurisdiction to this Court. In view of the above, We uphold the officeobjection. The appeal is not maintainable beforethis Court. Appeal is dismissed with liberty to theRevenue to take steps for assailing the orders beforethe appropriate Court. All original orders availableon record be returned back to the appellant on theirfiling photocopies of the same. With the aforesaid, this appeal isdismissed as not maintainable. (Rajendra Menon) (C. V. Sirpurkar) Judge Judge