2013 (7) TMI 94 - HC - Income Tax

Jurisdiction determined by Assessing Officer's situs at appeal filing. Delhi High Court rules on transfer case.

Commissioner of Income Tax-X Versus M/s Aar Bee Industries

Commissioner of Income Tax-X Versus M/s Aar Bee Industries - [2013] 357 ITR 542 Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court to entertain the appeals.2. Effect of the transfer of the assessee's case from Jammu to Delhi on jurisdiction.3. Interpretation and application of Section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.4. Relevance of previous judicial decisions on jurisdictional matters.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court to entertain the appeals:The primary issue raised by the respondent/assessee was whether the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the appeals, given that the assessment order was initially passed by the Assessing Officer in Jammu, and subsequent appellate orders were passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) at Jammu and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench. The respondent argued that the High Court with jurisdiction over the Assessing Officer at Jammu should entertain the appeals, not the Delhi High Court.2. Effect of the transfer of the assessee's case from Jammu to Delhi on jurisdiction:The appellant/revenue contended that jurisdiction lay with the Delhi High Court because the respondent's case had been transferred from the Income-tax Officer, Ward-I(1), Jammu to the Income-tax Officer, Ward-29(1), New Delhi. The transfer was effected by an order dated 20.09.2011 under Section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the revenue argued that this transfer meant that the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction to hear the appeals.3. Interpretation and application of Section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:The court examined the provisions of Section 127, particularly the Explanation to Section 127(4), which defines 'case' to include all proceedings under the Act for any year, whether pending, completed, or commenced after the date of the transfer order. The court referred to the decision in Sahara India Financial Corporation Limited, which held that the jurisdiction of the High Court is determined by the situs of the Assessing Officer at the time the appeal is filed. Since the respondent's case had been transferred to the Assessing Officer in New Delhi, the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction.4. Relevance of previous judicial decisions on jurisdictional matters:The court considered several previous decisions cited by both parties. The respondent relied on decisions such as Ambica Industries, Digvijay Chemicals Limited, Suresh Desai and Associates, and Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta, which generally supported the principle that the situs of the Assessing Officer determines the jurisdiction of the High Court. However, the court noted that these decisions did not consider the effect of a transfer order under Section 127. The court distinguished these cases based on the facts and the specific issue of transfer of jurisdiction, ultimately relying on the decision in Sahara India, which directly addressed the impact of a transfer order under Section 127.The court concluded that, at the time the appeals were filed, the Assessing Officer for the respondent was in New Delhi. Therefore, the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the appeals. The court directed that the appeals be listed before the appropriate bench for further proceedings.