PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – I, CHANDIGARH versus M/S. ABC PAPERS LIMITED

Citation: [2022] 17 S.C.R. 1058 · Decided: 18-08-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1058
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
   [2022] 17 S.C.R. 1058
1058
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – I, CHANDIGARH
v.
M/S. ABC PAPERS LIMITED
(Civil Appeal No. 4252 of 2022)
AUGUST 18, 2022
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA JJ.]
IncomeTax Act, 1961– ss.260A, 127– Appellate jurisdiction
of the High Courts u/s.260A against judgments of Income Tax
Appellate Tribunals – Jurisdiction of the High Court consequent
upon administrative order of transfer of a ‘case’ u/s.127from one
Assessing Authority to another Assessing Officer located in a
different State – Held: 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 the case or cases of an assessee are transferred in exercise
of power u/s.127, 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 u/s.127 for the same assessment year(s) – Jurisdiction of
a High Court is not dependent on the location of the ITAT, as
sometimes a Bench of the ITAT exercises jurisdiction over plurality
of states.
Precedent – Held: Binding nature of decisions of an appellate
court established under a statute on subordinate courts and tribunals
within the territorial jurisdiction of the State, is a larger principle
involving consistency, certainty and judicial discipline, and it has
a direct bearing on the rule of law – This ‘need for order’ and
consistency in decision making must inform our interpretation of
judicial remedies.
CIT v. Sahara India Financial Corporation Ltd. (2007)
294 ITR 363 (Del); CIT v. Aar Bee Industries Ltd. (2013)
357 ITR 542 (Del) – overruled.
Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta v. Commissioner of Income
Tax (1978) 113 ITR 817 (Del); Commissioner of Income
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1059
Tax v. Motorola India Ltd. (2010) 326 ITR 156 (P&H);
Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Gurgaon v.
M/s Parabolic Drugs Limited ITA No. 49 of 2012
(P&H); Ajay Gandhi v. B Singh (2004) 2 SCC 120:
2004 (1) SCR 164; The President, Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal v. A Kalyanasundaram (2005) 279 ITR 305
(Mad); Suresh Desai & Associates v. Commissioner of
Income Tax; (1998) 230 ITR 912 (Del); Birla Cotton
Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of
Income Tax (1980) 123 ITR 354 (Del); Commissioner
of Income Tax v. Digvijay Chemicals Ltd. (2007) 294
ITR 359 (Del); CIT v. Parke Davis (India) Ltd (1999)
239 ITR 820 (AP) – referred to.
Case Law Reference
2004 (1) SCR 164
referred to
Para 13.3
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.4252
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.02.2019 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Income Tax Appeal No.517 of
2017.
With
Civil Appeal Nos.4253 And 3480 of 2022.
N. Venkataraman, ASG, Kumar Shashank, Amit Kumar, Sridhar
Potaraju, Pranay Ranjan, Sughosh Subramaniyam, Raj Bahadur Yadav,
Advs. for the Appellant.
Rohit Jain, Aniket D. Agarwal, Ms. Kavita Jha, Advs. for the
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.
1. These appeals give rise to an important question concerning
appellate jurisdiction of the High Courts under Section 260A of the Income
Tax Act, 19611 against judgments of Income Tax Appellate Tribunals2.As
Benches of the ITAT are constituted to exercise jurisdiction
1 hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’.
2 hereinafter referred to as ‘ITAT’ / ‘Tribunals’.
PR. COMM’R OF INCOME TAX – I, CHANDIGARH v. M/S.
ABC PAPERS LTD.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1060
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
over more than one state, each state having a separate High Court,question
arose as to which of the High Court is the appropriate Court for filing
appeals under Section 260A. The question arose because Section 260A
is open-textual and does not specify the High Court before which an
appeal would lie in cases where Tribunals operated for plurality of States.
This question came to be conclusively answered by the High Court of
Delhi in the case of Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta v. Commissioner of
Income Tax3,wherein it was held that the appropriate High Court would
be the one where the Assessing Authority is situated. This judgment
continuous to hold the field.
2.  In these appeals,a further question that arise for consideration
is the jurisdiction of the High Court consequent upon administrative order
of transfer o

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.