2015 (11) TMI 1137 - HC - Income Tax

Jurisdiction of court - Held that - the present appeals are dismissed as this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the lis over an order passed by the Assessing Officer at Alwar. See Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Motorola India Ltd. 2007 (10) TMI 384 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in refiling ITA No. 182 of 2015
2. Appeal by revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961
3. Questions of law raised by the revenue
4. Facts related to the search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act
5. Jurisdiction of the Court to adjudicate on appeals

Delay in Refiling ITA No. 182 of 2015:
The judgment condoned a delay of 214 days in refiling ITA No. 182 of 2015 to address identical issues present in two appeals.

Appeal by Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The revenue filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench "F," New Delhi. The appeal raised substantial questions of law regarding the nature of trade, treatment of gains from the sale of agricultural land, misreading of facts, and errors in the conclusions reached by the Tribunal.

Questions of Law Raised by the Revenue:
The substantial questions of law raised by the revenue included issues related to the correctness of the Tribunal's decision, treatment of gains from the sale of specified agricultural land, misreading of facts and evidence, and errors in the conclusions reached by the Tribunal.

Facts Related to the Search and Seizure Operation:
The judgment outlined the facts related to a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act conducted on a group of cases, including the appellant. It detailed the assessment process, appeals filed by the appellant, and the subsequent orders passed by the authorities, leading to the appeals before the Tribunal and, eventually, the High Court.

Jurisdiction of the Court to Adjudicate on Appeals:
The judgment addressed the issue of jurisdiction, considering the locations of the Assessing Officer, CIT(A), and the Tribunal. Citing precedents, the Court held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate on the appeals due to the location of the Assessing Officer, and therefore, dismissed the appeals, returning them to the revenue for filing before the competent court of jurisdiction.