Jurisdiction under Article 226 is determined by the location of the authority issuing the order, not the residence of the affected party, emphasizing the principle of forum conveniens.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This petition challenges, inter alia, the order dated 27 August 2024 made under Section 148A(d) and notice dated 27 August 2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Income Tax Officer, Kolkata, and the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata.

3. Ms. Goel learned counsel for the Respondent/Revenue submits that the entire cause of action has arisen at Kolkata and therefore, this Court may not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain this petition. She relies on Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh Vs Union of India, AIR 1961 Supreme Court 532, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I Vs ABC Papers Limited, [(2022) 9 SCC 1] and Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. Vs Union of India, [(2011) 10 GSTR 20] in support of her contention.

4. Ms Kinjal Bhutia, learned counsel for the Petitioner, however submitted that the petitioner has its registered office in Mumbai and this address is updated in the PAN database of the IT Department. She submitted that the petitioner had already applied for the surrender of PAN in 2007, and only because no decision had been taken were impugned notices issued by the Kolkata officials. In such circumstances, she submits that a substantial portion of the cause of action has accrued in Mumbai; therefore, this court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this petition. She relies on Wills India Insurance Brokers (P.) Ltd. Vs Insurance Regulatory & Development Authority, [(2012) 22 taxmann.com 154 (Bom.)] and Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Vs Union of India, [AIR 2004 Supreme Court 2321] in support of her contention.

5. We have considered the rival contentions, but we are satisfied that it would be appropriate if the petitioner is relegated to avail of its remedies at Kolkata. Brief reasons for this conclusion are set out hereafter.

6. In paragraph 8 of the petition, the petitioner has pleaded the following:

The Petitioner says and submits that it has its registered office in Mumbai and this address is also updated in the PAN database of the Income Tax Department and further submits that the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have their offices at Kolkata issued a notice to the Petitioner at the registered office address in Mumbai. Therefore, a part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court as such this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain, try and determine the writ Petition under Article 226(2) of the Constitution.

7. Thus, the main emphasis is that the petitioner has its registered office in Mumbai, which is the address updated in the IT Department's PAN database. Ms Bhutia submitted that the petitioner's business is in Mumbai, and the impact of the impugned order/notices is felt in Mumbai.

8. The fact that the petitioner has a registered office in Mumbai may not be very relevant. In any event, even if we assume that the minuscule portion of the cause of actions could be said to have arisen in Mumbai, that, by itself, is not a factor based upon which the petitioner can compel this Court to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and entertain this petition.

9. Admittedly, the impugned order/notices were issued by the Income-tax officials in Kolkata. The case papers and other materials based on which the notices are issued are at Kolkata. The Petitioner’s assessing authorities are based at Kolkata. Thus, a substantial portion of the cause of action has accrued at Kolkata. Applying the principle of forum conveniens, it would be appropriate if the petitioner was relegated to availing of the remedies at Kolkata.

10. The decision in Kusum Ingots (supra) was considered by the Full Bench (of five judges) of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. (supra), wherein the Full Bench held that even if a small portion of the cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compel