The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) Bhopal vs. M/S Jayganga Exim Pvt.Ltd

PDF · subscribers
ITA/65/2025HC Madhya Pradesh25 February 2026Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA2 pages
For Petitioner: Siddharth Sharma[P-1]
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur held that it does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. ABC Papers Ltd (2022) 9 SCC 1. Paragraph 33 of that judgment clearly states that appeals against every decision of the ITAT shall lie only before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order is situated. Even if cases are transferred under Section 127 of the Act, the jurisdiction remains with the High Court where the Assessing Officer passed the original order. Therefore, since the Assessing Officer was in Mumbai, the appeal should be filed before the High Court of Mumbai. The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty granted to the appellant to file it before the appropriate High Court.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal, filed an Income Tax Appeal (ITA) No. 65 of 2025 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. The appeal challenged an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, who was the Assessing Officer. The assessment order was dated 31.03.2015. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh raised an objection regarding its territorial jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur has territorial jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, who was the Assessing Officer. This issue turns on the interpretation of the territorial jurisdiction for appeals against Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) decisions, as per Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the assessee, M/s Jayganga Exim Pvt. Ltd. The assessee was represented by an Amicus Curiae. Revenue's Contention: The appellant (Revenue) contended that the High Court of Madhya Pradesh had jurisdiction. However, the judgment relies on a Supreme Court decision to determine jurisdiction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 127

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL ON THE 25th OF FEBRUARY, 2026 INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 65 of 2025 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) BHOPAL Versus M/S JAYGANGA EXIM PVT.LTD Appearance: Shri Siddharth Sharma - Advocate and Shri Harpreet Singh Gupta- Advocate for the appellant. Shri Sumit Nema -Senior Advocate with Shri Ayush Gupta- Advocate as Amicus Curiae. ORDER Per: Justice Vivek Rusia The Office has raised objection about the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. 2. In this case the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, being the Assessing Officer, has passed the order dated 31.03.2015 (Annexure A-1); therefore, in view of the law laid down in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. ABC Papers Ltd reported in (2022)9 SCC 1, this ITA is liable to be filed before the High Court of Mumbai. The relevant paragraph 33 is reproduced as under:- "33. In conclusion, we hold that appeals against every decision of the ITAT shall lie only before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer who 1 ITA-65-2025 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16132 Signed by: TARUN KUMAR SALUNKE Signing time: 05-03-2026 16:51:16 Signature Not Verified

(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE (PRADEEP MITTAL) JUDGE passed the assessment order is situated. Even if the case or cases of an assessee are transferred in exercise of power under Section 127 of the Act, the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer has passed the order, shall continue to exercise the jurisdiction of appeal. This principle is applicable even if the transfer is under Section 127 for the same assessment year(s)." 3. In view of the above, this ITA will be maintainable before the High Court of Mumbai. Accordingly, this ITA is dismissed as not maintainable with a liberty to the appellant to file the same before the High Court of Mumbai. 4. Certified copy, if any, be returned to the appellant after retaining the photocopy of the same. tarun

2 ITA-65-2025 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16132 Signed by: TARUN KUMAR SALUNKE Signing time: 05-03-2026 16:51:16 Signature Not Verified

More judgments on Section 127

All 1,067 judgments and leading authorities on Section 127 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →