- (1.) THE subject matter of challenge in this appeal is a judgment and order dated 14th September, 2012 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bangalore Bench in ITA Nos. 175 to 755 & 1131/Bang/2010 and ITA No. 349/Bang/2011. The appeal preferred by the revenue was admitted by an order dated 2nd July, 2013. The appeal was thereafter taken up for hearing by us. The appeal, as a matter of fact, was heard. Today when the matter was taken up for further hearing, Mr. Bajoria, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the assessee -respondent, submitted that this Court has no jurisdiction to try and determine the appeal because the appeal is against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. He submitted that in that case the appeal can be entertained only by the Karnataka High Court. He, in support of his submission, drew our attention to Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, which provides that an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal. He then drew our attention to Section 269, which defines High Court, inter alia, as follows: Section 269. In this Chapter, - High Court" means - (i) in relation to any State, the High Court for that State;
(2.) HE submitted that High Court in relation to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, would mean the High Court of that State, which is Karnataka High Court. Therefore, this Court cannot entertain the appeal. He also drew our attention to a judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income -Tax vs. J.L. Morrison (India) Ltd., reported in : 272 ITR 321 wherein the following view was expressed: We hold that this Court cannot assume jurisdiction in respect of the matters reaching finality before the Tribunal in another State subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court of that State. He also drew our attention to a judgment in the case of CIT vs. A.B.C. India Limited, which was taken into consideration in the earlier judgment.
(3.) MR . Dudharia, learned advocate appearing for the revenue/appellant, however, drew our attention to a judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. AAR BEE Industries, reported in : 357 ITR 542 wherein the following view was taken: We are afraid and with respect we say so that we are unable to agree with the views expressed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court and are bound to follow the decision of this court in Sahara India Financial Corpn. Ltd. (supra). We are not inclined to accept the view taken by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, because while it is true that the reference to the case is with regard to the jurisdiction of an income -tax authority, it is also true that the jurisdiction of the High Court is determined by the situs of the Assessing Officer. When the Assessing Officer itself has been changed from one place to another, the High Court exercising jurisdiction in respect of the territory covered by the transferee Assessing Officer would be the one which would have jurisdiction to hear the appeal under Section 260A. Even in Ambica Industries (supra), a decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent/assessee, it has been held that it would be the situs of the Assessing Officer and not the situs of the Tribunal which would have the determinative factor with regard to the jurisdiction of the High Court hearing an appeal. Of course, the decision in Ambica Industries (supra) was not one rendered under the Income -tax Act, but was one which pertained to an appeal to the High Court under the Central Excise Act, 1944. We may also point out that the Central Excise Act does not deal with a transfer of a 'case' as is the position under the Income -tax Act. In any event, there is nothing in Ambica Industries (supra), which would enable us to take a view different from that taken by this court in Sahara India Financial Corpn. Ltd. (supra). It is a well accepted principle that there can be only one Assessing Officer in respect of a case. At the point of time when the present appeals were filed, the Assessing Officer insofar as all the cases of the respondent were concerned, was the Assessing Officer at Delhi. The fact that the Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal had passed the impugned orders or the fact that the initial assessment orders were passed by the Assessing Officer at Jammu would not be relevant for the purposes of determining the jurisdiction of the court at the point of time at which an appeal under Section 260A of the said Act is filed. It is the date on which the appeal is filed which would be the material point of time for considering as to in which court the appeal is to be filed. On the dates on which the present appeals were filed, the Assessing Officer of the respondent was Assessing Officer at New Delhi and, therefore, this court would have jurisdiction to entertain these appeals.;