9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 785 - HC - Income TaxHigh Court jurisdiction u/s 260A - Application for condonation of delay - objection as raised on the ground that the order impugned in all these appeals have been passed by the Delhi Tribunal over which this Court would not have any jurisdiction - correctness of the orders impugned which were admittedly passed by the Tribunal located at Delhi - HELD THAT - This issue is no longer res integra and has been answered by the Division Bench of this Court in A.B.C. India Limited 2002 (3) TMI 35 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT revenue's reference application under Section 256(1) of the Act was rejected by the Tribunal at Guwahati. Subsequently, the assessments were transferred to the Commissioner under the jurisdiction of the High Court at Calcutta. The High Court at Calcutta passed order under Section 256(2) and the assessee prayed to recall of the said order contending that the said order was passed without jurisdiction. The said submission made by the assessee was sustained by the Division Bench holding that the question of cause of action would be irrelevant since the Court would be determining the question since determined by the Tribunal of another State which, according to law, is bound by the decision of the Supreme Court at the first place and then by the decision by the jurisdictional High Court. The decision in ABC India Ltd. 2002 (3) TMI 35 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT was followed in J.L. Morrison India 2004 (6) TMI 17 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT and it was pointed out that if the High Court of Calcutta was to exercise jurisdiction over the order passed by the Tribunal located outside the jurisdiction of this Court, which would create a judicial anomaly with regard to the precedence that the order passed by the Court, would be binding upon the Tribunal of another State and this would create an anomalous situation with regard to pure question of law. It was held assumption of jurisdiction of such a case would amount to judicial impropriety and irregularity. To the same effect is the decision of Akzo Nobel India 2014 (3) TMI 1191 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT which followed the decision in ABC India Ltd. and J.L. Morrison India Ltd. In the said decision, it was pointed out that Section 260A provides that appeal shall lie to the High Court from an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. Appellate Tribunals are located in every State except these cases where an Appellate Tribunal may have been entrusted with the jurisdiction of more than one state. It was further pointed out that the word High Court used in Section 260A has to be understood in the light of Section 269 which provides that the High Court means in relation to any State, the High Court for that State. We hold these appeals are not maintainable before this Court as submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee in respect of an appeal filed in the assessee's group company's case 2020 (1) TMI 1541 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT - Similar objection was raised by the assessee and the same was sustained by order dated 28th January 2020 and the appeal was dismissed as not entertainable on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. In the light of the above, we hold that all these appeals are not maintainable and consequently, the applications for condonation of delay as well as the appeals are rejected as not maintainable. However, we grant liberty to the appellant/revenue to file the appeals before the appropriate High Court.
Issues:
Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for appeals challenging orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal located in Delhi. Analysis: The appeals were filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, challenging orders by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in Delhi. The respondent's counsel raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of these appeals, citing lack of jurisdiction for this Court over orders passed by the Delhi Tribunal. Reference was made to previous decisions where similar appeals were dismissed due to jurisdictional issues. The revenue argued that all assessment files had been transferred to Calcutta, allowing this Court to entertain the appeals. However, it was pointed out that the appeals were time-barred, and the jurisdiction issue remained crucial. The Division Bench had previously ruled on a similar case, emphasizing that the High Court of Calcutta cannot exercise jurisdiction over orders passed by a Tribunal outside its jurisdiction. This was based on the principle that the decision of the Tribunal of one State is bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court and the jurisdictional High Court. Any assumption of jurisdiction in such cases was deemed improper and irregular. The interpretation of Section 260A was clarified, stating that the word "High Court" refers to the respective High Court of the State in question. Consequently, the Court held that the appeals were not maintainable, following the precedent set in previous cases. The applications for condonation of delay and the appeals were rejected due to lack of jurisdiction. The revenue was granted liberty to file the appeals before the appropriate High Court. The original certified copies of the Tribunal orders were to be returned to the appellant's counsel after retaining a photostat copy. In conclusion, the judgment focused on the issue of jurisdiction under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, highlighting the limitations on the High Court's authority to entertain appeals challenging orders from Tribunals located outside its jurisdiction. The decision was based on legal principles and precedents established in previous cases, emphasizing the importance of maintaining judicial propriety and avoiding anomalies in the legal system.
|
