9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resent case would lie before the High Court of Telangana (previously High Court of Andhra Pradesh). The Assessing Officer and the Appellate Authorities therefore would be bound by the law propounded by the said High Court. If we entertain this petition merely because a small part of the cause of action may have arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court, we would be giving rise to possibility of different legal principles being applied in case of the same assessee on the same issue and possibly in relation to the same assessment year. Any appeal against the original assessment (if at all done) for the assessment year 2011-12 would be governed by the law laid down by Telangana High Court. In the context of challenge to the notice of reassessment, this Court would apply the decisions of Bombay High Court. This would be wholly undesirable. In case of Serious Fraud Investigation Office Vs. Rahul Modi and another [ 2019 (3) TMI 1411 - SUPREME COURT] the Supreme Court observed that in case of an offence which is triable by the Special Court established or designated for an area in which registered office of the company in relation to which the offence is committed, proper j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mere service of impugned notice to the petitioner at Mumbai would not mean that any part of cause of action has arisen within the limits of this Court. He pointed out that when such a notice is issued by the Department, the same is electronically generated on Income Tax Business Application (ITBA) which in turn gets delivered via e-mail to the e-mail address given by the assessee in the return of income. Additionally, such notices are ordinarily served to the assessee through speed-post. The respondents have also in reply pointed out that such notice was duly served to the petitioner on the e-mail address as well as through speed-post. Averments of the respondents in the affidavit-in-reply dated 24th April, 2019 filed by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad may be noted:- 3.9 With reference to Para No. 17 of the Writ Petition, I say that the Petitioner submitted that a second notice u/s 148 was served via email on the authorized representatives of the Petitioner at Mumbai seeking to reopen the reassessment for A.Y. 2011-12. This is a very colourable way of presenting facts. Since it is now mandatory to complete assessment proceedings electronically, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve based out of Mumbai. It is also the Hyderabad based authorized representatives viz. Shri Ravi Bharadwaj and Shri GBS Maitreya who mostly appeared before the First Respondent in relation to all assessment proceedings and other proceedings in relation to the Petitioner. Annexed hereto and marked Exhibit-E is a copy of the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 27/3/2018 and marked Exhibit-F is evidence of the email through which a copy of the same notice is sent to four email IDs. 3.21 With reference to Para No.30 of the Writ Petition, I say that the Petitioner claims that the Hon ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay has jurisdiction by presenting misleading facts in its Writ Petition. The assessment jurisdiction of the Petitioner company lies with the First Respondent i.e. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) -1, Hyderabad. The PAN of the Petitioner (AACCH4292A) lies in the jurisdiction of the First Respondent since many years. Assessment proceedings in the case of the Petitioner were conducted and completed in the office of the First Respondent for A.Y.s 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17. The Petitioner willfully sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of territorial jurisdiction. Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution provides that powers conferred in the clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part arises for exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government authority is not within those territories. 5. According to the petitioner, since the impugned notice of re-assessment was served to the petitioner at Mumbai, a part of cause of action can be stated to have arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. In this context, learned counsel had relied on a decision of Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in case of Modi Charitable Fund Society Vs. Income Tax Officer (1983) 142 ITR 818 (Allahabad). It was a case in which the Petitioner-assessee had challenged a notice of reopening of assessment before the High Court. The Department had raised the objection of territorial jurisdiction contending that no part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of Allahabad High Court. The Court overruled the objection and entertained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any part of the cause of action to entertain this application. Accordingly, on that ground this application must be dismissed. 7. This was reiterated in a decision in case of CESC Ltd. and another Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax and others Vol.263 ITR 382. 8. Learned Single Judge of Madras High Court in case of C.G. Shanmugham Vs. Union of India and others. (1995) 215 ITR 207(Mad) considered a case where the notice for recovery of tax was issued by the Recovery Officer at Mumbai to the legal representatives of the owner of property residing in Madras. The Court held that the Madras High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. 9. It can thus be seen that the issue of the High Court where the assessee was served with a notice of reopening of assessment getting territorial jurisdiction to entertain a petition challenging such notice, is not free from doubt. In the present case, we are not inclined to thrash out this legal issue for our final opinion. This is so because even if we accept the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the facts of the case would suggest arising of a part of cause of action within the jurisd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce Vs. Rahul Modi and another (2019) 5 Supreme Court Cases 266, the Supreme Court observed that in case of an offence which is triable by the Special Court established or designated for an area in which registered office of the company in relation to which the offence is committed, proper jurisdiction High Court would be the Court which has territorial jurisdiction over such Special Court. Though jurisdiction of the High Court where arrest and and detention may have taken place, would not be completely ousted, the Court should not entertain the challenge even if the arrests were made within the jurisdiction of such Court. 12. In case of Madhya Pradesh State Mining Corporation Limited Vs. Sanjeev Bhaskar and others (2013)12 supreme Court Cases 326 the Supreme Court observed as under:- 23. Admittedly, the third-party rights were created in the meantime in favour of the Mining Corporation pursuant to the order of Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 16-7-1986. The order passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court was not challenged in any appeal. The Delhi High Court also failed to notice the aforesaid fact and failed to decide the jurisdiction of the High Court to en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
