( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Section 256 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 filed on 30. 11. 1993 seeking mandamus to the ITAT New Delhi to draw up a statement of case and refer the questions stated in the petition for the opinion of the High Court.

( 2 ) IT is not necessary to state the questions of law on which the reference is being sought for looking at the nature of preliminary objection raised by the respondent to the maintainability of the petition, which is being disposed of by this order. The relevant facts only need be noticed in brief.

( 3 ) THE petitioner-assessee was a firm engaged in the business of production of motion pictures at Bombay. During the assessment year 1980-81 the firm had produced a film by the name of SUHAAG. The muharat was performed on 12. 1. 1996. The production of the film was completed in or about October, 1979. The film was released on 16. 11. 1979. A search and seizure action conducted by the Directorate of Enforcement. was carried out at the business premises of the assessee firm and its partners etc under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act somewhere at the end of 1979. The original assessment order was passed on 25. 3. 1983 by the Assessing Officer at Bombay who. The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals) Bombay who by order dated 3. 10. 1983, directed the assessing officer to afford the assessee an opportunity of hearing and recomplete the assessment in accordance with law. The Deputy Commissioner (Assessment) Bombay the passed the order of assessment. An appeal was preferred TO which was heard and decided by Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals) Bombay on 19. 12. 1988. The assessee and the Revenue, both preferred TO appeals to the ITAT Delhi which were disposed of by order dated 29. 10. 1992 by ITAT, Delhi Bench, New Delhi.

( 4 ) THE assessee filed an application under Section 256 (1) of the Act setting out a few questions and seeking reference to the High Court, which application was also dismissed by ITAT Delhi forming an opinion that no referable question of law arose out of the order of the Tribunal.

( 5 ) IN the abovesaid background of facts the present application has been filed before the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi.

( 6 ) A preliminary objection to maintainability of application has been raised on behalf of the Revenue submitting that the application does not lie before Delhi High Court. If at all, the application should have been filed before the High Court of Bombay,i. e the High Court exercising jurisdiction over the assessing authority having jurisdiction to assess the assessee at the relevant time.

( 7 ) ON behalf of the petitioner, it is submitted that the appellate order of the Tribunal wherefrom the questions of law are being said to arise having been passed by the Tribunal at Delhi, reference application filed at New Delhi is competent. It was also submitted that addition the jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi is spelled out additionally by the fact that on 8-12-92 the Commissioner of Income-tax-VIII has in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 127 of the Act, passed an order whereby the powers of the assessing officer qua the assessee have been conferred on an assessing officer at Delhi.

( 8 ) IN our opinion, the question of territorial jurisdiction of the High Court who would be competent to hear a reference under Section 256 (1) of the Act or an application under Section 256 (2) of the Act is no more res integra in view of the law settled by a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) (1978) 113 ITR 817. In that case, the assessee a Hindu Undivided Family resided and carried on business in Meerut. The assessment orders were passed by the Income-tax Officer at Meerut and appeals therefrom were heard by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner at Meerut. Further appeals were heard by Delhi Bench of ITAT. Later, a r