2019 (3) TMI 501 - HC - Income Tax

Court lacks jurisdiction on tax matters due to Assessing Officer's location.

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh Versus M/s ABC Papers Limited

The High Court ruled that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to decide on the disallowance of depreciation on a 'paper brand' and a 'chemical recovery ... Jurisdiction of court - maintainability of appeal - which assessing officer have jurisdiction over assessee - Order passed before search by AO in Delhi - After search case cetralised at Ghaziabad - order under Section 153A/143(3) was passed by AO Ghaziabad - The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed by CIT(A), Kanpur - appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed by the Tribunal at New Delhi - Appeal against ordr of ITAT filed in Punjab & Haryana High Court - The doctrine of precedents and rule of binding efficacy of law laid down by the High Court within its territorial jurisdiction and which exercises territorial jurisdiction over the suits of the Assessing Officer HELD THAT:- Since the initial process of assessment was started at New Delhi and the final assessment was framed by the Assessing Officer at Ghaziabad, this court lacks territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. This court has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the lis over an order passed by the Assessing Officer, i.e. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad. Accordingly, the complete paper books of all the appeals are returned to the appellant-revenue for filing before the competent court of jurisdiction in accordance with law. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly. Issues:- Disallowance of depreciation on 'paper brand'- Disallowance of depreciation on 'chemical recovery plant'- Territorial jurisdiction of the courtDisallowance of Depreciation on 'Paper Brand':The appellant-revenue filed an appeal against the deletion of the addition of depreciation on 'paper brand' by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The Tribunal had relied on a previous decision without considering the separate assessment years. The High Court noted the history of assessment orders and appeals, ultimately concluding that it lacked territorial jurisdiction due to the final assessment being done by the Assessing Officer in Ghaziabad. Citing precedents, the court emphasized the importance of territorial jurisdiction in tax matters and returned the case to the appellant for filing in the appropriate court.Disallowance of Depreciation on 'Chemical Recovery Plant':Similarly, the appellant-revenue challenged the deletion of the addition of depreciation on a 'chemical recovery plant' by the ITAT. The High Court reviewed the assessment process, noting the transfer of cases to Ghaziabad for final assessment. Again, the court ruled that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to decide on the matter, emphasizing the need for cases to be heard in the appropriate jurisdiction as per tax laws.Territorial Jurisdiction of the Court:The High Court extensively discussed the importance of territorial jurisdiction in tax cases, citing previous judgments to support its decision. It highlighted that decisions of one High Court do not bind another outside its jurisdiction. The court reiterated that the location of the Assessing Officer for the final assessment determines the jurisdiction of the court. Due to the assessment being done in Ghaziabad, the High Court concluded that it did not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter and returned the case to the appellant for filing in the correct jurisdiction.