Territorial jurisdiction and valid appeal requirements control income-tax references; non-existent company appeals cannot found a reference.

Territorial jurisdiction under the Income-tax Act to answer a reference depends on the assessing and appellate proceedings to which the matter is properly referable, not on the Bench of the Tribunal that heard the appeal. A reference arising from assessment and appellate orders passed in Jaipur could not be entertained by the Delhi High Court; the proper forum was the Rajasthan High Court. A valid reference also presupposes a competent appeal and a lawful Tribunal order. Appeals filed in the names of companies that had ceased to exist after amalgamation were non est, so no valid reference could arise from them and waiver or delay could not cure the defect.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the reference arising from assessment and appellate orders passed in Jaipur; (ii) whether a reference could validly arise where the appeals before the appellate authorities were incompetent because the orders were made in the names of dissolved companies.

Issue (i): whether the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the reference arising from assessment and appellate orders passed in Jaipur

Analysis: The reference arose from orders passed by the Income-tax Officer at Jaipur and appeals disposed of at Jaipur. The location of the Tribunal Bench that heard the appeals was not decisive of High Court jurisdiction. Jurisdiction under the Act depended on the State to which the matter pertained and the appropriate High Court was the one having territorial connection with the assessing officer and appellate proceedings. The fact that the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal heard the appeals did not confer jurisdiction on the Delhi High Court.

Conclusion: The Delhi High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the reference; the proper forum was the Rajasthan High Court.

Issue (ii): whether a reference could validly arise where the appeals before the appellate authorities were incompetent because the orders were made in the names of dissolved companies

Analysis: The transferor companies had ceased to exist after amalgamation. Appeals filed in the names of non-existent entities were treated as non est. A valid reference under the Income-tax Act presupposes a valid and competent appeal before the appellate authorities and a valid order of the Tribunal. Where the appeals themselves were incompetent, the Tribunal lacked a lawful foundation to make a reference. The Birla company could not cure the defect by asserting a status inconsistent with its own case, nor could waiver or delay confer jurisdiction on the High Court.

Conclusion: The appeals were incompetent and no valid reference could arise from them.

Final Conclusion: The reference was not maintainable before the Delhi High Court and was returned unanswered as incompetent.

Ratio Decidendi: A High Court under the Income-tax Act can answer only a reference arising from a valid appeal and from a matter territorially referable to it; if the appeal is non est or the reference is made to the wrong High Court, the reference is incompetent.

---