Court dismisses petitions due to lack of jurisdiction in Allahabad, allows refiling in Lucknow if no impediment exists.

The court dismissed the petitions for want of territorial jurisdiction at Allahabad but allowed the petitioners to file fresh petitions before the Lucknow Bench if no other legal impediment existed. The court emphasized that the cause of action arose where the impugned order was passed and that the grant of "previous approval" at Kanpur was irrelevant in establishing the cause of action. The analysis focused on the legality and validity of the order dated January 24, 1997, under section 142(2A) of the Income-tax Act, emphasizing the importance of prior approval and compliance with statutory requirements.

---

---

Issues:
1. Jurisdictional challenge regarding the maintainability of writ petitions at Allahabad in a case involving an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-III, Lucknow.
2. Interpretation of the cause of action for maintaining petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. Analysis of the legality and validity of the order dated January 24, 1997, passed under sub-section (2A) of section 142 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
4. Examination of the provisions of section 142(2A) of the Act regarding the directions to get accounts audited by an accountant and the necessity of prior approval.
5. Determination of the stage at which cause of action arises in the context of passing orders under section 142(2A) of the Act.
6. Assessment of the relevance of the grant of "previous approval" by respondent No. 1 in establishing the cause of action for maintaining the petitions.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The jurisdictional challenge raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petitions at Allahabad due to the order being passed at Lucknow. The argument was made that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench, making the petitions cognizable by that bench alone. However, the counter-argument emphasized that the petitions were maintainable at Allahabad as well since the "previous approval" for the impugned order was granted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) at Kanpur, falling within Allahabad's jurisdiction.

2. The interpretation of the cause of action for maintaining the petitions revolved around the Supreme Court's decisions in relevant cases, highlighting that the cause of action arises where the impugned order is passed. The key question was when and where the cause of action arose against the order dated January 24, 1997, under section 142(2A) of the Act.

3. The analysis of the legality and validity of the impugned order focused on the petitioners' prayers for relief, challenging the order and seeking various writs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The grounds of challenge primarily targeted the validity of the impugned order itself, emphasizing infirmities in the "previous approval" process.

4. Examination of section 142(2A) of the Act highlighted the requirements for the Assessing Officer to form an informed objective opinion and obtain prior approval before directing the assessee to get the accounts audited by a designated accountant. Non-compliance with these conditions would render the order contrary to law.

5. The determination of the stage at which cause of action arises clarified that it is the act of the Assessing Officer directing the audit by the designated accountant and the resultant injury that gives rise to the cause of action. The order passing the direction is crucial for causing distress or injury to the assessee.

6. The assessment of the relevance of the grant of "previous approval" by respondent No. 1 concluded that the cause of action for maintaining the petitions was established based on the order passed by respondent No. 2 at Lucknow, rendering the grant of "previous approval" at Kanpur irrelevant in determining the cause of action.

In conclusion, the court upheld the objection regarding the maintainability of the petitions at Allahabad, dismissing them for want of territorial jurisdiction. However, the petitioners were allowed to file fresh petitions before the Lucknow Bench if no other legal impediment existed.

---