NISSAN POLYPLAST V. INCOME TAX OFFICER

TAXAP/67/2008

AI Insights

In this case, Nissan Polyplast appealed against the judgment and order dated 18.5.2007 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench \\u2018SMC\\', which confirmed the assessment of rental income of Rs. 4,62,000/- under the terms of a lease agreement for the assessment year 2003-04. The primary legal issue was the jurisdiction of the Gujarat High Court to hear the appeal, given that both the Assessing Officer and the appellant's business were located in Daman. The court referenced decisions from the Delhi, Karnataka, and Punjab and Haryana High Courts, which collectively held that the appropriate jurisdiction for this matter lies with the Bombay High Court.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 764601 (HC-GUJARAT)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 16-10-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Sheth Banarasi Pass Gupta v. CIT, Delhi (Central), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Madanlal Co., CIT vs. Motoroal India Limited, Tax Appeal No. 1779 of 2009
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: S UDHIR M EHTA
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVATIA
• Keywords: Income tax appellate tribunal; Jurisdiction; Lease agreement; Rental income
• Section: ITA No. 2472/Ahd/2006

Judgement Text

"O/TAXAP/67/2008 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 67 of 2008 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER ================================================================ 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================================ NISSAN POLYPLAST....Appellant(s) Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER....Opponent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR SN DIVATIA, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR SUDHIR M MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER Page 1 of 4 O/TAXAP/67/2008 JUDGMENT Date : 16/10/2014 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 18.5.2007 passed by the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench ‘SMC’, Ahmedabad in ITA No. 2472/Ahd/2006 for A.Y. 2003- 04. 2. While admitting this appeal, this Court has framed the following substantial question of law: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming that rental income of Rs. 4,62,000/- was liable to be assessed in view of the terms and conditions of lease agreement?” 3. At the out-set it is required to be noted that admittedly the office of the Assessing Officer was situated at Daman and even the appellant-assessee is also carrying out the business at Daman. Considering the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sheth Banarasi Pass Gupta v. CIT, Delhi (Central) reported in 113 ITR 817 (Delhi), decision of the Page 2 of 4 O/TAXAP/67/2008 JUDGMENT Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Madanlal Co., reported in 2002 ITR 360 and the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Motoroal India Limited reported in 326 ITR 156, it is to be held that this Court would not have any jurisdiction to entertain the present Tax Appeal and the appellant would have to prefer appeal before the Bombay High Court. The learned advocates for the respective parties is not in a position to dispute the above. 4. Applying ratio laid down by the Delhi High Court, Karnataka High Court, Punjab and Haryana High Court in the aforesaid cases and the decision of this High Court in Tax Appeal No. 1779 of 2009, the present Tax Appeal is dismissed without further entering into the merits of the case and/or expressing anything on merits on the ground that against the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal, this Court would not have any jurisdiction. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the appellant to prefer appeal before the appropriate High Court i.e. in the present case Bombay High Court and as and when such proceedings are initiated, the same be considered in accordance with law and on merits. With this, the present appeal is dismissed. (K.S.JHAVERI, J.) Page 3 of 4 O/TAXAP/67/2008 JUDGMENT (K.J.THAKER, J) mandora Page 4 of 4 "