2019 (3) TMI 676 - HC - Income Tax

Bombay High Court lacks jurisdiction over appeal from ITAT Bangalore Bench

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -3, Pune Versus M/s. Sungard Solutions (I) Pvt Ltd

The Bombay High Court determined it lacked jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against an order from the ITAT Bangalore Bench. The court held that the ... Territorial jurisdiction of the High Court - Subsequent to passing order of Tribunal, an order was passed u/s 127 to transfer assessee's case from an AO at Banglore to an AO at Pune - appropriate High Court for purpose of appeal under Section 260A - HELD THAT:- On interpretation of Section 127 of the Act, it held that it has nothing to do with the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court as it only deals with the transfer of assessee's case from one Assessing Officer to another Assessing Officer. Similarly, the Calcutta High Court J.L. Morrioson (I) Ltd [2004 (6) TMI 17 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] has on application of section 260-A and 269 of the Act held that the High Court where the Tribunal is seated will be the appropriate High Court for purpose of appeal under Section 260A. Both these orders deal with the issue which arise in this appeal i.e which Court would have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal from the order of the Tribunal passed in Banglore whether the Bombay High Court or Karnataka High Court. In similar situation, both the Courts have held that it would be the Court which exercises jurisdiction over the seat of the Tribunal which passed the order which would have jurisdiction. Our view is in consonance with the views of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Motorola [2007 (10) TMI 384 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] and JL. MORRISON (INDIA) LTD. [2004 (6) TMI 17 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] Therefore, in the present facts, we uphold the preliminary objections of the respondent. We hold that this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain appeals under Section 260A of the Act in respect of order dated 30th July, 2015 passed by the Bangalore bench of the Tribunal. Thus, this appeal is not maintainable before this Court. Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of the appeal before the Bombay High Court.2. Jurisdiction of the High Court over orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Bangalore Bench.3. Interpretation of Sections 120, 124, 127, 260A, and 269 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.4. Applicability of judicial precedents from other High Courts.Detailed Analysis:1. Maintainability of the Appeal Before the Bombay High Court:The primary issue raised was whether the Bombay High Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against the order dated 30.7.2015 passed by the ITAT Bangalore Bench. The respondent's counsel argued that the appeal should lie before the Karnataka High Court as the order was passed by the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal. The appellant's counsel contended that due to the transfer of the respondent's case from Bangalore to Pune under Section 127 of the Act, the Bombay High Court should have jurisdiction.2. Jurisdiction of the High Court Over Orders Passed by the ITAT Bangalore Bench:The court examined whether the jurisdiction to entertain appeals under Section 260A of the Act is determined by the location of the Tribunal or the situs of the Assessing Officer. The court held that the jurisdiction of the High Court is determined by the location of the Tribunal that passed the order, as per Section 260A and 269 of the Act. Thus, since the order was passed by the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal, the Karnataka High Court would have jurisdiction.3. Interpretation of Sections 120, 124, 127, 260A, and 269 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:- Section 120: Deals with the jurisdiction of Income Tax Authorities.- Section 124: Pertains to the jurisdiction of Assessing Officers.- Section 127: Governs the transfer of cases between Assessing Officers.- Section 260A: Provides for appeals to the High Court from orders passed by the Tribunal.- Section 269: Defines the term 'High Court' for the purposes of the Act.The court noted that Sections 120, 124, and 127 apply only to the authorities listed in Section 116 of the Act, which does not include the Tribunal or the High Court. Therefore, the transfer of cases under Section 127 does not affect the jurisdiction of the High Court over appeals from Tribunal orders.4. Applicability of Judicial Precedents from Other High Courts:The court discussed various precedents:- Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Sahara India Financial Corp. Ltd. and CIT Vs. AAR Bee Industries: These cases held that the High Court where the transferee Assessing Officer is located has jurisdiction. The Bombay High Court respectfully disagreed with this view, noting that these decisions did not consider Sections 260A and 269 of the Act.- Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT Vs. Motorola India Ltd. and Calcutta High Court in CIT Vs. J.L. Morrison (India) Ltd.: These cases held that the High Court where the Tribunal is located has jurisdiction. The Bombay High Court agreed with this interpretation.Conclusion:The Bombay High Court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against the order of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal. The appeal should be filed before the Karnataka High Court. The court upheld the preliminary objection raised by the respondent and returned the appeal to the appellant for appropriate action.Disposition:The appeal was disposed of with the direction that it be filed in the appropriate High Court, i.e., the Karnataka High Court.