PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RAJ BAGH SRINAGAR vs. M/S SHIVA MINT INDUSTRIES MIRPUR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE BARI BRAHMANA J AND K JAMMU

PDF · subscribers
ITA/4/2024HC J&KJKHC02000685202428 April 2025Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that, as per the Supreme Court's judgment in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ABC Papers Ltd, appeals against ITAT decisions lie before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order is situated. Therefore, this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax filed statutory appeals before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of these appeals due to lack of territorial jurisdiction.

What were the issues?

The key issue was whether the High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain appeals when the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order was situated in a different jurisdiction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

20 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU

CJ Court

Case: ITA No. 2/2024 c/w ITA No. 3/2024 ITA No. 4/2024 ITA No. 5/2024 ITA No. 6/2024 ITA No. 7/2024 & ITA No. 8/2024

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Raj Bagh, Srinagar …Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Suraj Singh Wazir, Advocate

v/s

M/s Jay Ambey Aromatics Sidco Industrial Complex Bari Brahmana J and K Jammu. …. Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Shreya Jain, Advocate Mr. Gaurav Tanwar, Advocate Mr. Vikas Sharma, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE.

ORDER 28.04.2025

1.

Learned counsel for the respondent has raised preliminary objection in respect of maintainability of these statutory appeals preferred by the appellant in terms of Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 before this Court by urging that as the assessment orders have been passed by the Assessing Officer at New Delhi, therefore, as per the mandate of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ABC Papers Ltd, [2022] 141 Taxmann.com 332 (SC)”, the appeal shall lie before that High Court

2 ITA No. 2/2024 a/w connected matters

within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer, who has passed the assessment order is situated, as such, this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain these appeals. 2. In “Principal Commissioner of Income Tax” (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 33 has held that the appeals against every decision of the ITAT shall lie only before the High Court, within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer, who has passed the assessment order, is situated. 3. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that this Court lacks the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the instant appeals preferred by the appellant, as such, the appeals are returned to the appellant for filing the same before the High Court having jurisdiction over the Assessing Officer, if the appellant intends to do so. 4. Accordingly, all the appeals are disposed in the aforesaid terms. 5. Copy of this order be placed on record of each file.

(RAJNESH OSWAL) (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Jammu 28.04.2025 Karam Chand/Secy.

Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No

Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No KARAM CHAND 2025.04.30 15:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →