COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. DIGVIJAY CHEMICALS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondent -assessee to the maintainability of the present appeal in this Court. It was argued by Mr. Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, that since the assessment order for the assessment years in question namely 1993 -94, 1994 -95 and 1994 -95 was passed by the AO, Bulandshahr and since an appeal against the said order was heard by the CIT(A). Meerut, any appeal arising out of the order passed by the Tribunal even though located in Delhi can be maintained only before the High Court at Allahabad. Relying upon the Division Bench decisions of this Court in Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta vs. CIT 1978 CTR (Del) 183 : (1978) 113 ITR 817 (Del) and Suresh Desai and Associates vs. CIT (1998) 148 CTR (Del) 345 : (1998) 230 ITR 912 (Del), it was argued by Mr. Aggarwal that the jurisdiction of the High Court to hear references under the unamended provisions and appeals under s. 260A of the Act has to be determined by reference to the citus of the AO and not the Tribunal which may be exercising jurisdiction simultaneously over territories falling within the territorial jurisdiction of two or more High Courts. He contended that the Tribunal, Delhi was at the relevant time exercising jurisdiction even over a part of State of Uttar Pradesh but the very fact that such jurisdiction was exercised by the Tribunal sitting in Delhi did not necessarily mean that orders passed by the Tribunal in relation to such territories would become appealable before the Delhi High Court. He submitted that the present appeal was not maintainable and could be returned to the appellant for presentation before the High Court at Allahabad.

(2.) ON behalf of the Revenue, it was, on the other hand, argued by Ms. Bansal that even when assessment for the asst. yr. 1993 -94 with which we are concerned in this appeal was completed in Bulandshahr and the appeal against the said assessment order was heard by CIT, Meerut, the fact that the assessment records in relation to the assessee stood present appeal in this Court. She submitted that the transfer of the records in relation to the completed assessments for the years mentioned above must be so construed as to make any order passed by the Tribunal in relation to the above assessment years appealable before this Court.

(3.) WE have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made before us at the bar. The material facts are not in dispute. The assessee was being assessed at Bulandshahr for the earlier years including asst. yrs. 1993 -94 and 1994 - 95. Assessment orders passed for the above two assessment years was assailed before the CIT(A), Meerut who had Tribunal located at Delhi was exercising jurisdiction even over territories falling in the adjoining State of Uttar Pradesh. yrs. 1988 -89, 2000 -01 and 2001 -02 were transferred to Delhi in terms of an order passed under s. 127 of the IT Act. The question is, whether the said order of transfer would alter the course of events insofar as the filing of an appeal before the High Court competent to hear the same is concerned. In our view it does not. We say so because the forum of appeal is determined by reference to the citus of the AO and not the Tribunal. The Division Bench decisions of this Court in Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta's case (supra) and in Suresh Desai's case (supra) relied upon by Mr. Aggarwal sufficiently settle the legal position in that regard. This Court has in Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta's case (supra) held that when a Tribunal hears and determines an appeal from any particular State, it would be appropriate for the Bench to state the case to the High Court of the State from which the appeal arose. That principle stated in relation to the position that existed before the introduction of s. 260A of the Act would, in our opinion, hold good even after the remedy by way of a reference is substituted by a regular appeal. The test for determining the jurisdiction of the High Court would be whether the assessment proceedings were completed within its territorial limits. Viewed thus, not only were the assessment proceedings in the instant case completed in Bulandshahr, but even the appeals arising out of the said proceedings were heard and disposed of by the CIT(A), Meerut. We have in that view no difficulty in holding that an appeal against the order passed by the Tribunal even though located in Delhi ought to be filed in the High Court at Allahabad.