9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (9) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of action arose within the jurisdiction of this court and mere serving of the notice does not give any territorial jurisdiction to this court to entertain this application. - I hold that mere service of the notice on the petitioner also cannot constitute a part of the cause of action in respect of this matter and accordingly this application is dismissed and I hold that this court has no territ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs which are reported in CIT v. Alfred Herbert (India) P. Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 583 (Cal); Y. Narayana Chetty v. ITO [1959] 35 ITR 388 (SC); Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC); Mohindra Mohan Sirkar v. ITO [1978] 112 ITR 47 (Cal); CIT v. Oriental Rubber Works [1984] 145 ITR 477 (SC); ITO v. Ch. Atchaiah [1996] 218 ITR 239 (SC) and Raza Textiles Ltd. v. ITO [1973] 87 ITR 539 (SC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... treated as an agent in relation to the said firm for the assessment year 1998-99. The question arose in this application whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain this application as the point has been taken by the respondents that no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this court and mere serving of the notice does not give any territorial jurisdiction to this cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further hold that since there is an alternative remedy against the order passed by the said authorities under section 163 of the said Act, the petitioner has a right to prefer an appeal before the authorities and accordingly, this court cannot interfere on that ground also.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, this application is also dismissed, however, without any costs. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
