2014 (3) TMI 1191 - HC - Income Tax

High Court jurisdiction u/s 260A - assessee submitted that this Court has no jurisdiction to try and determine the appeal because the appeal is against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore - HELD THAT - Section 260A provides that an appeal shall lie to the High Court from an order passed by the appellate tribunal. The appellate tribunals are located in every State except those cases where an appellate tribunal may have been entrusted with the jurisdiction of more than one State. The word High Court used in Section 260A has to be understood in the light of the Section 269 quoted above, which provides that High Court means, in relation to any State, the High Court for that State. There can be no dispute that High Court in relation to the State of Karnataka, where the appellate tribunal is situated, which delivered the impugned judgment and order, is the High Court of that State. Under Section 260A, orders passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal are appealable to the High Court on a substantial question of law. Sub-section 1 of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, quoted above, permits a second appeal from every decree passed in appeal by any Court subordinate to the High Court, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question. When Section 260A and Section 269 of the Income Tax Act are read in conjunction with Section 100(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the answer is irresistible that the appeal shall lie only before the Karnataka High Court and not before this Court. Considering the view we have taken, this appeal cannot be heard. Mr. Dudharia submitted that in that case an order should be passed in the same line as was done in the case of J.L. Morrison 2004 (6) TMI 17 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT granting adequate opportunity to the appellant to present the appeal before the jurisdictional High Court. This prayer of Mr. Dudharia was not objected to by Mr. Bajoria. The appellant is as such granted liberty to present the appeal before the appropriate Court within six weeks from date.

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction of High Court to entertain appeal against order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bangalore.

The judgment in question dealt with the issue of jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain an appeal against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bangalore. The respondent argued that the appeal should be entertained only by the Karnataka High Court as per Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, which defines "High Court" in relation to any State as the High Court for that State. The respondent relied on a previous judgment of the Court which held that matters reaching finality before the Tribunal in another State fall under the jurisdiction of the High Court of that State.

On the other hand, the appellant cited a different judgment that emphasized the jurisdiction of the High Court being determined by the situs of the Assessing Officer and not the situs of the Tribunal. The appellant argued that since the Assessing Officer for the cases in question was in New Delhi, the appeal could be filed in the Delhi High Court. The Court analyzed these arguments and held that the view expressed by the Court was preferable to that of the Delhi High Court. It was concluded that the appeal shall lie only before the Karnataka High Court and not before the Court where the appeal was initially filed.

The Court also referred to Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows a second appeal to the High Court if the case involves a substantial question of law. When Section 260A and Section 269 of the Income Tax Act were read in conjunction with Section 100(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, it was determined that the appeal should be presented before the Karnataka High Court. Consequently, the appeal before the Court was dismissed, and the appellant was granted liberty to present the appeal before the appropriate Court within six weeks from the date of the judgment.

Additionally, the Court acknowledged the error in admitting the appeal and decided that the time consumed in pursuing the appeal before the Court should be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. This decision was made to ensure that the appellant had adequate opportunity to present the appeal before the jurisdictional High Court.