D.K. Seth, J. - (1.) This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of delay. A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. J.P. Khaitan that the order was passed by the learned Tribunal at Bombay subject to the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court. The assessment for the concerned previous year reached its finality in another State over which the Tribunal and the High Court of that State had jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of this court cannot be stretched to the Tribunal in another State when the matter reaches finality in the other State.
(2.) In his usual fairness, he had submitted that so far as the assessment for the subsequent years has since been transferred to this State but the concerned assessment having reached finality in another State the transfer of the cases for assessment of the subsequent years will not entitle the assessee to challenge the order of the assessment reached finality in another State, before the High Court of this State. Therefore, this High Court has no jurisdiction. Mr. Khaitan relied upon a decision of this High Court in CIT v. A.B.C. India Ltd. [2002] 255 ITR 108.
(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant on the other hand, contended that the assessee at present is being assessed in this State. Therefore, at the moment the assessee is subject to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal of this State and the jurisdiction of this High Court. Therefore, at the present moment, it is open to the assessee to approach this High Court. The decision of any High Court in a particular case is binding on the Tribunal irrespective of the area in which it operates. Therefore, this court has jurisdiction since the right of the assessee is being affected within the territorial limits of this High Court and a part of the cause of action has since arisen within this State.;