CIT, CHANDIGARH. vs. INVESTMENT TRUST OF INDIA, CHENNAI
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear the appeal filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench-A, Chennai. The reasoning was based on the fact that the Tribunal's order was passed by a bench located in Chennai, and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh did not have territorial jurisdiction over it. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on this preliminary ground. The High Court stated that the appeal should be presented before the court of competent jurisdiction. As the appeal was dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction, no order was passed on the application seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal.
What were the facts?
The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Chandigarh (the appellant/revenue) against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench-A, Chennai (the Tribunal) on June 12, 2006. The respondent is The Investment Trust of India, Chennai. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh was considering the appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The High Court noted that the appeal was filed against an order of the Tribunal, and questioned its territorial jurisdiction over the Tribunal.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh has territorial jurisdiction to hear an appeal against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench-A, Chennai, under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961? The appellant contended that the appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the appellant or the respondent regarding the territorial jurisdiction. The High Court itself raised the issue of jurisdiction.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA Nos.93 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:20.04.2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Chandigarh ...Appellant Versus The Investment Trust of India, Chenai ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Ms.Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.KUMAR, J. ` It is an admitted fact that impugned order in the instant appeal filed under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench-A, Chennai (for brevity `the Tribunal') on 12.6.2006 (A-3). We have failed to understand how this Court would have territorial jurisdiction over the Tribunal. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and the same is dismissed. To be presented before the Court of competent jurisdiction. However, in view of the fact that appeal is dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, we do not pass any order on the application seeking condonation of delay of 638 days in re-filing the appeal. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE 20.04.2010 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mk JUDGE
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited vs. Union Of INDIAGujarat · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co Operative Housing Society LTDBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga And Ors vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co-Operative Housing Society LTD And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Permender Singh vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Abdhish Dhal Samanta, Bhubaneswar vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
