IT: Where impugned order had been passed within local limits of territorial jurisdiction of High Court, High Court would have jurisdiction to try appeals against such impugned order
■■■
[2013] 39 taxmann.com 12 (Gauhati)
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Commissioner of Income-tax
v.
Shree Ganapati Rolling Mills (P.) Ltd.*
I.A. ANSARI AND P.K. MUSAHARY, JJ.
IT APPEAL NOS. 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23
& 34 OF 2010 & 18 OF 2011
& 34 OF 2010 & 18 OF 2011
MAY 29, 2013
Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - High Courts - Appeal to [Territorial jurisdiction] - Whether where impugned order had been passed within local limits of territorial jurisdiction of High Court, High Court would have jurisdiction to try appeals against such impugned order - Held, yes [Paras 8 & 9][In favour of assessee]
CASES REFERRED TO
CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. [2013] 356 ITR 235/217 Taxman 184/34 taxmann.com 34 (Gauhati) (para 1).
K.P. Pathak, A. Hazarika and B. Chakraborty for the Appellant. R.P. Agarwalla, R. Goenka, U.K. Borthakur, A. Goenka and D. Sahu for the Respondent.
JUDGMENT
I. A. Ansari, J.-In this set of appeals, the substantial questions of law raised are the same as in I. T. A. Nos. 7 of 2010 and 16 of 2011. Hence, our decision, rendered in I. T. A. Nos. 7 of 2010 and 16 of 2011, on May 29, 2013-since reported in CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. [2013] 356 ITR 235/217 Taxman 184/34 taxmann.com 34 (Gauhati), disallowing the appeals, would be the decision in the present set of appeals too.
2. It has, however, been pointed by the learned Additional Solicitor General that the orders, which were impugned before the learned Tribunal, were orders passed by the Assessing Officer in the State of Meghalaya and, hence, this court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to decide this set of appeals.
3. Opposing the submissions made by the appellants, Mr. R. P. Agarwalla, learned senior counsel, submits that since the impugned orders of the learned Tribunal have given rise to this set of appeals and not the orders passed by the Assessing Officers, the cause of action, in the present set of appeals, is, admittedly, the impugned orders passed by the learned Tribunal and since these orders have been passed within the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of this court, this court has the jurisdiction to decide this set of appeals.
4. While considering the rival submissions, made before us, what needs to be borne in mind is that the present set of appeals is governed, in spirit, by the principles embodied in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the CPC").
5. Sections 15 to 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure prescribe the place of suing. Sections 16, 17 and 18 deal with the place of suing so far as immovable properties are concerned, while section 19 deals with suits seeking compensation for wrongs done to a person or movable property. It is section 20, which deals with other suits and this section makes it clear that suits are to be instituted, where the defendants reside or where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.
6. An appeal, such as, the present ones, is nothing, but an extension of suit. Hence, a place, where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises, is the legal venue for institution of an appeal under the Act.
7. In the cases at hand, the orders impugned are the orders, which have been passed by the learned Tribunal and not by the assessing authority.
8. Clearly, therefore, the cause of action, in the present set of appeals, lies in the impugned orders of the learned Tribunal.
9. Since the impugned orders have been passed by the Tribunal situated within the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of this court, this court does have the jurisdiction to try the appeals. We may, however, hasten to add that this conclusion, which we have reached, is not on the situs of the Tribunal, but on the fact that the orders, impugned in this set of appeals, have been passed within the local limits of the territorial jurisdiction of this court and, hence, this court has the jurisdiction to try the appeals.
10. Situated thus, we hold that this court does have the jurisdiction to decide these appeals and since these appeals stand on the same footing as do other appeals, which we have dismissed by the judgment and the order dated May 29, 2013, passed in I. T. A. Nos. 7 of 2010 and 16 of 2011-since reported in Meghalaya Steels Ltd. case (supra), we conclude and hold that these appeals, too, must fail.
11. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, these appeals fail and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed.
12. No order as to costs.
USPRegards
Prarthana Jalan
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment