The main legal point established in the judgment is that the physical location of an inter-state Tribunal is not determinative of the High Court's jurisdiction, and the principles established in Ambica Industries apply to resolve the jurisdictional issue.

JUDGMENT :-

(Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.)

Introduction:

1. An Income Tax Appellate Tribunal exercises its jurisdiction over more than one state, though it is located in one of those states. Its order is sought to be challenged. Which High Court should have the jurisdiction to rule on the Tribunal's order? Is it the High Court in whose territorial jurisdiction that Tribunal is located? Or is it the High Court in whose territorial jurisdiction the authority that passed the preliminary order operates?

Facts:

2. The respondent is a company located in Raichur District, Karnataka. Its registered office, too, is in Karnataka. For the income tax purposes, the respondent company falls within the jurisdiction of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle–1, Belgaum, Karnataka.

3. As seen from the record, for the assessment year 2008-09, the A.O., Belgaum, reopened the assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, issued a notice under section 148, and completed the reassessment in March 2013. Assailing that Assessment Order, the respondent-assessee appealed to CIT (A), Bangalore. Eventually, both the Assessee and the Revenue further appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench. Through the Order, dated 30/09/2014, the Tribunal held in the Assessee's favour. So the Revenue filed this appeal before us.

Submissions:

Preliminary Objection:

4. When the learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue began her submissions on the merits, Shri Devidas Pangam, the learned counsel for the respondent, raised a preliminary objection: this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. So we required both the learned counsel to advance their arguments on this preliminary objection.

The Respondent:

5. To begin with, Shri Pangam has submitted that the High Court’s jurisdiction in matters emanating from Tribunals depends on whether the Tribunal is multi-state or uni-state. To elaborate, he has pointed out that unlike the arrangement under CPC or under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court’s jurisdiction under the tax regime will have different parameters applied. To support his contentions, Shri Pangam has relied on M/S. Ambica Industries v. Commissioner Of Central Excise (2007)6 SCC 769).

Appellant:

6. Ms Linares, the learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue, has submitted that Ambica Industries has come to be rendered under a different factual scenario. According to her, a Division Bench of this Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3 v. Sungard Solutions (I) Pvt. Ltd (2019 SCC OnLine Bom 456) has already addressed that issue. So, as a co-equal Bench, we should be guided by that.

Discussion:

7. As we have already noted, to decide whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this appeal, the following factors may matter: (a) The Assessee is located in Raichur District, Karnataka; (b) its registered office, too, is in Karnataka; (c) for income tax purposes, the Assessee falls within the jurisdiction of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle–1, Belgaum, Karnataka; (d) the A.O., Belgaum, passed the preliminary order; (e) the Assessee appealed to CIT (A), Bangalore; (f) against the appellate ruling, both the Assessee and the Revenue appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench, Goa.

8. If we reckon the jurisdiction based on the physical location of the Tribunal, we will have jurisdiction. Instead, if we reckon the jurisdiction based on the situs of the parties, we will not—for both the Assessee and the Income Tax authority that passed the primary order are in Karnataka. Incidentally, the Tribunal has jurisdiction over the whole of Goa and few parts of Karnataka: Karwar, Belgaum, Mangalore, North Kanara. And Raichur District falls within the jurisdiction of Central Circle–1, Belgaum.

9. So let us see how the jurisdictional tangle ought to be resolved: should it be based on the place of the parties or that of the Tribunal? (a) Ambica Industries:

10. In Ambica Industries, the appellant carr