THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. B S PANWAR (INDL.)

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/1501/2008HC GujaratGJHC24025840200821 December 2013Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.D.KOTHARI2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Gujarat held that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the Tax Appeal. This conclusion was based on the location of the Assessing Officer's office and the assessee's business operations at Nani Daman. The court relied on the ratio laid down in the decisions of the Delhi, Karnataka, and Punjab and Haryana High Courts, which established that appeals should be filed before the High Court having territorial jurisdiction over the place where the Assessing Officer's office is situated. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, without entering into the merits of the case. The appellant was granted liberty to prefer the appeal before the appropriate High Court, which was identified as the Bombay High Court.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad (appellant-revenue) filed a Tax Appeal before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The appeal challenged an order dated August 17, 2007, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No. 95/AHD/2002 for Assessment Year 1996-97. The assessee, B.S. Panwar (Indl.), carried out business at Nani Daman, and the Assessing Officer's office was also situated there. The revenue's appeal was filed before the Gujarat High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court of Gujarat has the jurisdiction to entertain the Tax Appeal, considering the location of the assessee's business and the Assessing Officer's office at Nani Daman. The revenue contended that the Gujarat High Court had jurisdiction. The assessee did not dispute the revenue's contention, but the court noted that the office of the Assessing Officer was situated at Nani Daman, and the assessee also carried out business there. The court considered decisions from the Delhi High Court (Sheth Banarsi Pass Gupta vs. CIT), Karnataka High Court (CIT vs. Madanlal Co.), and Punjab and Haryana High Court (CIT vs. Motoroal India Limited) regarding territorial jurisdiction for tax appeals.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O/TAXAP/1501/2008 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL  NO. 1501 of 2008 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:  HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH sd/­ and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.D.KOTHARI sd/­ ============================================= 1. Whether   Reporters   of   Local   Papers   may   be  allowed to see the judgment ? NO 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy  of the judgment ? NO 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question  of law as to the interpretation of the constitution  of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? NO 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? NO ============================================= THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX....Appellant(s) Versus B S PANWAR (INDL.)....Opponent(s) ============================================= Appearance: MR SUDHIR M MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MRS SWATI SOPARKAR, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ============================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.D.KOTHARI  Date : 21/12/2013

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH)

1.0.

Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   learned   Income   Tax   Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the “ITAT”) dated 17.08.2007 passed in   ITA   No.95/AHD/2002   for   AY   1996­97,   the   appellant­revenue Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad has preferred present Tax Appeal. O/TAXAP/1501/2008 JUDGMENT

2.0.

At the outset, it is required to be noted that admittedly the office of  the   Assessing  Officer  was  situated   at  Nani  Daman  and even  the respondent­assessee is also carrying out the business at Nani Daman. entering into the merits of the case and / or expressing anything on merits on the ground that against the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned ITAT, this Court would not have any juri iction. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the appellant to prefer appeal before the appropriate High Court i.e. in the present case Bombay High Court and as and when such proceedings are initiated, the same be considered in accordance with law and on   merits. With this, present appeal is dismissed. ­ (M.R.SHAH, J.) ­ (R.D.KOTHARI, J.) Kaushik

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →