Income Tax Appeal No. 69 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. --- Income Tax Appeal No. 69 of 2006 Date of Decision: 30.11.2010 M/s. Ashoka Alloy Steels Ltd --- Appellant Versus Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Simla and another --- Respondents === CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. --- PRESENT: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Standing Counsel for the respondents. --- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act’”) has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 20.5.2005, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench ‘B’, Chandigarh (in short “the Tribunal”) in ITA Nos. 718/CHANDI/2002 relating to the assessment year 1996-97. Income Tax Appeal No. 69 of 2006 2 It is not necessary to notice the facts as the first and the foremost question that has cropped up during the course of hearing is whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate this appeal. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In the present case, the order under Section 201(1A) of the Act was passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range, Shimla (H.P.). The appeal preferred by the assessee was allowed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Simla [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] vide order dated 20.8.2002. Further, appeal of the Revenue was accepted by the Tribunal on 20.5.2005. In the present appeal, filed by the assessee, a specific query was put to the counsel for the appellant that when the order under Section 201(1A) of the Act had been passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range, Shimla (H.P.), how this Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and adjudicate the controversy raised. The learned counsel for the assessee could not dispute that fact and offer any satisfactory explanation there for. It has been held by the Karnatka High Court in Big Apple Computers v. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, (2007) 207 ELT 36 that for filing an appeal the jurisdiction of the High Court emanates from the assessing officer who exercises jurisdiction over the assessee. The Delhi High Court in Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi (Central), (1978) 113 ITR 817 and the Apex Court in Ambica Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2007(6) SCC 769 has held to the same effect. Since the territorial jurisdiction laid with the Income Tax Appeal No. 69 of 2006 3 Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range, Shimla (H.P.), this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction with liberty to present the same before the court of competent jurisdiction, if so advised. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) November 30, 2010 JUDGE *rkmalik*