COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. MAYANK ELECTRO LTD.

O/TAXAP/1157/2006 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 1157 of 2006 With TAX APPEAL NO. 1158 of 2006

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI

and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER

================================================================ 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 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 ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================================ COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX....Appellant(s) Versus M/S. MAYANK ELECTRO LTD.....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 KS JHAVERI and Page 1 of 4

O/TAXAP/1157/2006 JUDGMENT HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER

Date : 27/11/2014

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 10.2.2006 passed in ITA No. 695/Ahd/2001 fpr AY 1998-99 and ITA No. 696/Ahd/2001 for AY 1999-00, the appellant-Revenue has preferred both these Tax Appeals. 2. While admitting these Tax Appeals, this Court has framed the following substantial question of law: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal was right in restoring the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer on the ground that the order of ITAT favourable to the revenue in another case is subject matter of appeal before this Hon’ble Court ?” 3. At the outset-, it is required to be noted that admittedly the office of the Assessing Officer was situated at Daman and even the assessee is also carrying out the business at Page 2 of 4

O/TAXAP/1157/2006 JUDGMENT Nani Daman. Considering the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sheth Banarasi Pass Gupta v. CIT Delhi, (Central) reported in 113 ITR 817 (Delhi), decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Madanlal Co., reported in 2002 ITR 360 and the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Motoroal India Limited reported in 326 ITR 156, it is to be held that this Court would not have any jurisdiction to entertain the present Tax Appeal and the appellant would have to prefer appeal before the Bombay High Court. Learned advocates for the respective parties is not in a position to dispute the above. 4. Applying ratio laid down by the Delhi High Court, Karnataka High Court and Punjab and Haryana High Court in the aforesaid cases, the present Tax Appeals are dismissed without further 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 jurisdiction. 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 appeals are dismissed. Page 3 of 4

O/TAXAP/1157/2006 JUDGMENT (K.S.JHAVERI, J.) (K.J.THAKER, J) mandora Page 4 of 4