IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA Nos.92 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