9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 1249X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay is returned to the appellant-revenue for filing before the competent court of jurisdiction in accordance with law. With regard to the cross objections, learned counsel for the respondent submits that in view of the return of the appeal, the cross objections have been rendered infructuous and be disposed of as such. Ordered accordingly. - ITA No.194 of 2014 (O&M) and XOBJC-212-CII of 2014 - - - Dated:- 10-2-2016 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MRS. RAJ RAHUL GARG, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. Denesh Goyal, Advocate For The Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Divya Suri, Advocate and Mr. Gaurav Mittal, Advocate Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-revenue under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in financial transactions by issuing cheques against receipt of cash and charging commission. On 31.10.2001, the assessee filed its income tax return for the assessment year 2001-02 declaring total income of ₹ 1,68,226/- which was initially processed under section 143(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. Notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee. Thereafter notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee by the Assessing Officer. The assessee through its representative appeared before the Assessing Officer and made submissions. After scrutinizing the material and the details filed by the assessee, the Assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e income tax return for the assessment year 2001-02, the registered office of the assessee was at Surat. The return was filed on 31.10.2001 at Surat. The assessment order dated 10.11.2004 was passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Surat. Even the appeal was filed before the CIT(A) at Surat. Further appeal was filed by the assessee before the Tribunal at Ahmedabad. Thereafter when the registered office of the appellant was transferred to Amritsar, only then the appeal was transferred to the Tribunal at Amritsar. Since the initial process of assessment was started at Surat and the final assessment was framed by the Assessing Officer at Surat, this court lacks territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. In The Commissioner of Inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hus, such an assessee may avoid application of inconvenient law laid down by the jurisdictional High Court of Bombay. On the basis of the aforementioned reasoning, the Division Bench sustained the objection that the jurisdiction to entertain the application under sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 256 of the Act vested in the High Court of Bombay and not of Delhi. We are in respectful agreement with the aforementioned reasoning of the Delhi High Court. Accordingly, we hold that the preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the assessee-respondent is sustainable. xxxx xxxx xxxx A conjoint reading of the aforementioned provisions makes it evident that the Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner is empowered to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
