TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 464
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uestions of law for the consideration of this Court: "[A] Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the additions of Rs. 5,05,82,170/on account of bogus expenditure of purchases, when the assessee failed to produce the cogent evidences relating to purchase of cotton and that the decision of the Tribunal is perverse as relevant was not considered by it. [B] Whether the Tribunal has erred in law by not setting aside the order of the CIT(A) as he relied on fresh evidence in violation of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rule. [C] Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the additions of Rs. 1,34,78,753/u/ s. 40A(2)(b) to the Directors of the company alternatively when the provisions of the section u/s. 36(1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and 14, the following has been observed: "11 The bare reading of the above provisions will establish that Chapter XIII of the Act would be applicable only to the Income Tax Authorities under the Act as listed out in Section 116 thereof. Thus, it follows that the provisions of Section 120, 124 and 127 of the Act will also apply only to the Authorities listed in Section 119 of the Act. The Tribunal and the High Court are not listed in Section 116 of the Act as Income Tax Authorities under the Act. Therefore, Section 124 and 127 of the Act being relied upon by the Revenue can have no bearing while dealing with the issue of which High Court will have jurisdiction over the orders of the Tribunal. 12 The jurisdiction of the Court which wil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rovides in Rule 4(i) thereof, the Bench which shall hear the appeals, filed before it in terms of Section 253 of the Act, shall be decided by the President of the Tribunal. Therefore, which bench / seat of the Tribunal will hear the appeals is not decided by the seat of the Assessing Officer as provided in Section 127 of the Act, as it does not apply in case of the Tribunal as it is not an Income Tax Authority under the Act. It is the President of the Tribunal in exercise of his powers under Rule 4(1) of the ITAT Rules, issued a standing order No.63/97 dated 2.7.2013 as amended, inter alia, providing the jurisdiction of the bench dependent upon the areas from where the impugned orders have originated. In the above standing order, Note 4 spe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder, is situated. 14 The above plain reading of the provisions is also supported by jurisdictional / constitutional principles. The Tribunal which passes orders is bound by the orders passed by the jurisdictional High Court where the Tribunal is situated. In the above view, in the present facts, the Tribunal which passed the impugned order is situated in Bangalore. Therefore, the Tribunal would be bound by the orders passed by the Karnataka High Court at Bangalore. However, it is likely that there could be divergence of opinion between two High Courts on a particular issue, one view by the Court where the Tribunal is situated i.e. Bangalore and the other view by the Court where the Assessing Officer is now situated i.e. Pune, leading to....