CESC LTD Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of this case are similar and identical to that of the judgment delivered by me in W. P. No. 4840(W) of 2001 (Ispat Industries Ltd. v. Deputy CIT) . In my opinion this High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this application and accordingly, this application is also dismissed.

(2.) I have also considered the judgments referred before me by Dr. Pal, appearing on behalf of the petitioners which are reported in CIT v. Alfred Herbert (India) P. Ltd,; Y. Narayana Chetty v. ITO; Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO; Mohindra Mohan Sirkar v. ITO; CIT v. Oriental Rubber Works; ITO v. Cft. Atchaiah and Raza Textiles Ltd. v. ITO. In my opinion, the said judgments do not help the petitioners in the facts and circumstances of this case. The question arises in this application whether the notice served under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act dated March 8, 2001, by the Deputy Commissioner of income-tax, Circule 2(6), Mumbai, that he has reason to believe that the income of the Linklaters and Paines, a firm of the UK, chargeable to tax for the assessment year 1998-99 has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the said Act and the petitioner was called upon to file a return in respect of the income of the said non-resident firm as its alleged agent. The petitioner has also challenged an order passed by the said Deputy Commissioner under Section 163 of the Act by which the petitioner-company has been treated as an agent in relation to the said firm for the assessment year 1998-99.

(3.) The question arose in this application whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain this application as the point has been taken by the respondents that no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this court and mere serving of the notice does not give any territorial jurisdiction to this court to entertain this application. The other point taken by the respondent authority that this order has been passed under Section 163 of the said Act. The petitioner has a right of appeal from the said order under the code. The same points also arose in the writ petition being W. P. No. 4840(W) of 2001 (Ispat Industries Ltd. v. Deputy CIT) and I have duly dealt with the same points and the facts are identical. Therefore, I am bound by my judgment delivered by me in the said matter and accordingly, I hold that mere service of the notice on the petitioner also cannot constitute a part of the cause of action in respect of this matter and accordingly this application is dismissed and I hold that this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this application. I further hold that since there is an alternative remedy against the order passed by the said authorities under Section 163 of the said Act, the petitioner has a right to prefer an appeal before the authorities and accordingly, this court cannot interfere on that ground also.