|The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 4620 (Bom-HC) : (2020) 429 ITR 0451 : (2020) 317 CTR 0713 : (2021) 277 TAXMAN 0558
INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 260A Section 54
Where the assessee and revenue both were located in Karnataka and the primary order, too, emanated from Karnataka; so was the first appellate order then the appeal against such order can be made in Karnataka High Court only and Bombay High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this Appeal.
Appeal (High Court) - Territorial jurisdiction - Inter-State Tribunal's jurisdiction -
For the assessment year 2008-09, the AO, Belgaum, reopened the assessment under section 147 issued a notice under section 148, and completed the reassessment in March, 2013. Assailing that assessment order, the respondent-assessee appealed to CIT(A), Bangalore. Eventually, both the assessee and the revenue further appealed to the Tribunal, Panaji Bench. Through the Order, dated 30-9-2014, the Tribunal held in the assessee's favour. So, the Revenue filed this appeal before Bombay High Court. Held: Mere physical location of an inter-State Tribunal cannot be determinative of the High Court's jurisdiction for an aggrieved party to challenge that Tribunal's order. Here, the assessee was located in Karnataka, so are the Income Tax authorities. The primary order, too, emanated from Karnataka; so was the first appellate order. All challenges, including the appeal before the Tribunal, were in continuation of that primary adjudication or consideration before the Assessment Officer at Belgaum, Karnataka. This Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this Appeal. As a result, this court returned the Tax Appeal, to be presented to the jurisdictional High Court if the appellant desires.
Followed:Ambica Industries v. CCE (2007) 6 SCC 769 (SC).
REFERRED : Bombay Snuff Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI (2006) 194 ELT 264 (Del) : 2006 TaxPub(EX) 278 (Del), CIT v. S. Sivaramakrishna Iyer (1968) 70 ITR 860 (Mad-HC) : 1968 TaxPub(DT) 364 (Mad-HC), Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. UOI JT 2004 (Supl) SC 475, Sorbins v. Viorginia 19 US (6 Wheat) 264, 399 (181), Gaur ratibha v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 4 Bom CR 100, Mantoo Sarkar v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2009 (2) All MR 475 (SC).
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 2008-09
SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT