TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (10) TMI 384
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the interests of the Revenue wherein the relief under section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was allowed on the total income without adjusting the brought forward loss and unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier years ? b. Whether the Tribunal has erred in law in vacating the order under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?" 2. The brief facts of the case are that on November 29, 1996, the assessee filed its return of income before the Assessing Officer-cum-Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Asstt.), Special Range-I, Bangalore, declaring its total income of Rs. 3,50,30,300, in respect of the assessment year 1996-97 (A-I). Thereafter, a revised return was filed on December 12, 1996, in which the declared income was the same. The return was processed under section 143(1)(a) of the Act and after taking up the case for scrutiny a notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued. The assessee determined its income after adjusting the brought forward loss and unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier years amounting to Rs. 16,76,69,984 as against the current income of Rs. 82,16,36,146. The assessee also claimed deduction under section 80HHC of the Act out of its income ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... depreciation and the carried forward depreciation were to arise based on the principle laid down by the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. H. M. T. Ltd. [1993] 199 ITR 235, and also the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Shirke Construction Equipments Ltd. [2000] 246 ITR 429. In the light of these decisions, the assessee has, inter alia, claimed that the order of the Assessing Officer cannot be considered as erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. However, we need not to go into the merits of the controversy in view of a preliminary objection canvassed by the assessee. 6. Mr. C. S. Aggarwal, learned senior counsel at the outset has raised a preliminary objection concerning the maintainability of these appeals and also to the territorial jurisdiction of this court to entertain the instant appeals. Learned counsel has maintained that the assessee-respondent was incorporated on June 23, 1989, under the Companies Act, 1956 and it was being assessed till the assessment year 2001-02 at Bangalore by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range- I, Bangalore, who has territorial jurisdiction over the assessee-respondent. On the fact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 1997, issued in pursuance of sub-rule (1) of rule 4 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 (for brevity, "the Rules") and supported his submission by relying upon the judgments of the Delhi High Court in the cases of Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta v. CIT [1978] 113 ITR 817 and Suresh Desai and Associates v. CIT [1998] 230 ITR 912 (Delhi) and a judgment of the Patna High Court in the case of CIT v. Justice S. B. Sinha [1999] 237 ITR 268. 7. On the merits also learned counsel for the assessee-respondent has made submissions but in view of the preliminary objection raised, we are not opining on the merits and would prefer to first decide the preliminary objection. 8. Mr. Yogesh Putney, learned counsel for the Revenue-appellant, has submitted that the preliminary objection is devoid of any merit and is liable to be rejected. According to learned counsel, the assessee-respondent had requested for transfer of its case from Bangalore to Gurgaon on January 2, 2002 on the ground that the registered office of the company has shifted to Gurgaon. According to learned counsel, the applications were again filed on February 5, 2002 and November 25, 2002 and records were accordi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cided on June 29, 2004 at Bangalore. According to Note 4 under sub-rule (1) of rule 4 of the Rules, it has been stipulated that ordinary jurisdiction of the Bench is to be determined not by the business or residence of the assessee but by the location of the office of the Assessing Officer. This statutory guidance is available from the Standing Order dated September 16, 1997, passed under sub-rule (1) of rule 4 of the Rules. 11. Moreover, the aforementioned legal position has been laid down by the Delhi High Court in the cases of Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta [1978] 113 ITR 817 (Delhi) and Suresh Desai and Associates [1998] 230 ITR 912 (Delhi). In the case of Suresh Desai and Associates [1998] 230 ITR 912 (Delhi), assess-ment in respect of the assessment year 1980-81 was framed by the Assessing Officer at Bombay, which was in pursuance to a search and seizure action conducted by the Directorate of Enforcement under section 132 of the Act. The assessee had also filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) at Bombay, who had directed the Assessing Officer to afford the assessee an opportunity of hearing and then again complete the assessment in accordance with law. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court in the case of Birla Cotton, Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 354. The Division Bench also held that the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal extends over several States though each of such States has its own High Court. The decision of the High Court is binding on the subordinate courts and authorities or Tribunals under its superintendence throughout the territory in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction but it does not extend beyond its territorial jurisdiction. In other words, the decision of one High Court is not a binding precedent for another High Court or for courts or tribunals outside its territorial jurisdiction. The doctrine of precedents and the rule of binding efficacy of the law laid down by the High Court within its territorial jurisdiction, the questions of law arising out of decision in a reference, has to be determined by the High Court which exercises territorial jurisdiction over the situs of the Assessing Officer and if it was otherwise then it would result in serious anomalies as an assessee affected by an assessment order at Bombay may invoke the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court to take advantage of a suitable decisi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (a) territorial area ; (b) persons or classes of persons ; (c) incomes or classes of income ; and (d) cases or classes of cases. (4) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2), the Board may, by general or special order, and subject to such conditions, restrictions or limitations as may be specified therein,- (a) authorise any Director General or Director to perform such functions of any other income-tax authority as may be assigned to him by the Board ; (b) empower the Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner to issue orders in writing that the powers and functions conferred on, or, as the case may be, assigned to, the Assessing Officer by or under this Act in respect of any specified area or persons or classes of persons or incomes or classes of income or cases or classes of cases, shall be exercised or performed by an Additional Commissioner or an Additional Director or a Joint Commissioner or a Joint Director, and, where any order is made under this clause, references in any other provision of this Act, or in any rule made thereunder to the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be references to such Additional Commissioner o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs to whom the case is to be transferred are not subordinate to the same Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner,- (a) where the Directors General or Chief Commissioners or Commissioners to whom such Assessing Officers are subordinate are in agreement, then the Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner from whose jurisdiction the case is to be transferred may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, pass the order ; (b) where the Directors General or Chief Commissioners or Commissioners aforesaid are not in agreement, the order transferring the case may, similarly, be passed by the Board or any such Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner as the Board may, by notification in the Official Gazette, authorise in this behalf. (3) Nothing in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be deemed to require any such opportunity to be given where the transfer is from any Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) to any other Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whether wi....