Tribunal reference jurisdiction follows the State of assessment origin, not the Bench seat or assessee location.

A reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, arising from an appeal heard by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal, had to be made to the High Court of the State where the assessment proceedings originated. The Tribunal's territorial allocation under the standing orders depended on the assessing officer's location, not the assessee's residence or business, and the fact that the Delhi Bench heard Meerut matters did not shift the proper reference court. The Delhi High Court therefore lacked jurisdiction, the preliminary objection succeeded, and the statement of case was returned for appropriate action.

---

---

Issues: Whether a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, arising from an appeal heard by the Delhi Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, could validly be made to the Delhi High Court when the assessing Income-tax Officer was at Meerut in Uttar Pradesh.

Analysis: The relevant scheme of the 1922 Act, the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1946, and the standing orders issued by the President of the Tribunal showed that the jurisdiction of a Tribunal Bench for appeals and reference applications was determined by the location of the assessing officer, not by the assessee's residence or place of business. The standing orders in force for the period concerned transferred Meerut matters to the Delhi Benches, but the Court held that this did not alter the proper High Court for a reference under section 66. In the absence of an express statutory rule governing a Bench having jurisdiction over more than one State, the Court applied the basis already adopted for the Tribunal's territorial allocation and read section 66(8) as indicating that the reference should go to the High Court of the State from which the matter arose.

Conclusion: The reference ought to have been made to the Allahabad High Court, not the Delhi High Court, and the Delhi High Court had no jurisdiction to answer it.

Final Conclusion: The preliminary objection succeeded, and the High Court declined to answer the reference, returning the statement of case for appropriate action.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a Tribunal Bench exercises jurisdiction over matters from more than one State under the applicable standing orders, a reference under section 66(1) must be made to the High Court of the State from which the assessment proceedings originated, rather than merely to the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the Bench sits.

---