COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SIDDH INTERNATIONAL

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/1480/2009HC GujaratGJHC24024265200921 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. Applying the ratio laid down by the Delhi, Karnataka, and Punjab and Haryana High Courts in the cited cases, the Court found that given the location of the assessee's business and the Assessing Officer's office at Nani Daman, the appeal should have been preferred before the Bombay High Court. Consequently, the Tax Appeal was dismissed without entering into the merits of the case or expressing any opinion on the merits. The appellant was granted liberty to prefer an appeal before the appropriate High Court, i.e., the Bombay High Court, and if such proceedings were initiated, they would be considered in accordance with law and on merits.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad (appellant-revenue) filed a Tax Appeal before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, challenging an order dated 6.2.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No.1735/AHD/2008 for Assessment Year 2000-01. The assessee, Siddh International, carried out its business at Nani Daman, and the Assessing Officer's office was also situated there. The appeal was filed by the revenue against the ITAT's order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court of Gujarat has jurisdiction to entertain the Tax Appeal, considering the location of the assessee's business and the Assessing Officer's office at Nani Daman. Assessee's contention: Not recorded. Revenue's contention: The revenue argued that the High Court of Gujarat has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The revenue relied on decisions from the Delhi High Court in Sheth Banarsi Pass Gupta vs. CIT, Delhi (Central) (113 ITR 817), Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Madanlal Co. (2002 ITR 360), and Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Motoroal India Limited (326 ITR 156).

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O/TAXAP/1480/2009 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL  NO. 1480 of 2009 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 ============================================= COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX....Appellant(s) Versus SIDDH INTERNATIONAL....Opponent(s) ============================================= Appearance: MR SUDHIR M MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED 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 6.2.2009 passed in ITA   No.1735/AHD/2008   for   AY   2000­01,   the   appellant­revenue Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad has preferred present Tax Appeal. O/TAXAP/1480/2009 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 →