Iqbal Ahmed Ansari, J.

1. In this set of appeals, the substantial questions of law raised are the same as in I.T.A. Nos. 7 of 2010 and 16 of 2011. Hence, our decision, rendered in I.T.A. Nos. 7 of 2010 and 16 of 2011, on May 29, 2013 since reported in CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. [2013] 356 ITR 235 (Gauhati), disallowing the appeals, would be the decision in the present set of appeals too. It has, however, been pointed by the learned Additional Solicitor General that the orders, which were impugned before the learned Tribunal, were orders passed by the Assessing Officer in the State of Meghalaya and, hence, this court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to decide this set of appeals.

2. Opposing the submissions made by the appellants, Mr. R.P. Agarwalla, learned senior counsel, submits that since the impugned orders of the learned Tribunal have given rise to this set of appeals and not the orders passed by the Assessing Officers, the cause of action, in the present set of appeals, is, admittedly, the impugned orders passed by the learned Tribunal and since these orders have been passed within the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of this court, this court has the