Point of Law: Reading of section 260A(1) would go to show that an appeal shall lie to the High Court from “every order” passed in appeal by the Tribunal if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law.

JUDGMENT :

UJJAL BHUYAN, J.

1. Heard Mr. J.D. Mistri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned standing counsel revenue for respondent No. 1 and Mr. R.V. Desai, learned senior counsel for respondent No. 2.

2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 19.03.2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in ITA Nos.371 to 374/Bang/2011 for the assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 as well as order dated 20.08.2020 passed by the President, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and further seeks a direction that hearing of the above appeals be continued and concluded by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench.

3. By the order dated 19.03.2020, Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal passed a speaking order expressing its views that request made by the revenue for transfer of the said appeals from the Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to Mumbai Benches of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified and to place the said views before the President to enable the President of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to pass orders on the request for transfer of the appeals from the Bangalore Bench to Mumbai Benches. By order dated 20.08.2020 President of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal directed that the above appeals pending in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench should be heard and determined by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Benches at Mumbai.

4. Facts leading to the above orders as pleaded may be briefly noted.

4.1. Petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on 18.10.1961 having its registered office at Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai. It is stated that since its incorporation its registered office has remained unchanged at Mumbai. Petitioner is engaged in the business of mining, running gas unit and generating power through windmills. It has two mining divisions i.e. mining division-1 and mining division-2 at Hospet, Karnataka.

5. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out in the business premises of the petitioner on 26.10.2007. Pursuant to the search action, proceedings were initiated under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly “the Act” hereinafter). Consequently, assessment proceedings were drawn up in respect of four assessment years i.e. assessment years 2005-06, 2006- 07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. Separate assessment orders were passed by the Assessing Officer i.e. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore on 31.12.2009 for the above four assessment years. In so far the first three assessment years are concerned, the assessments were made under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act. However, for the assessment year 2008-09, the assessment was made under section 143(3).

6. In the assessment proceedings petitioner filed report under section 10B of the Act along with audit report under section 44AB of the said Act and claimed deduction under section 10B for the assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. Petitioner also claimed deduction on account of expenditure and depreciation for use of aircrafts for all the four assessment years. Assessing Officer negatived the claim of the petitioner for deduction under section 10B of the Act as according to the Assessing Officer petitioner had violated the conditions laid down under section 10B(2) of the Act. Thus, vide the assessment orders dated 31.12.2009 it was held that petitioner would not be entitled to deduction under section 10B in respect of the assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. Accordingly such claim was disallowed and brought to tax as income of the respective years. In so far claim of expenditure and depreciation for use of aircraft is concerned, the Assessing Officer disallowed 50% of