V.K. Gupta, C.J.—Order dated 28th January, 2003 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench "B" in ITA Nos. 626 and 627/ Chandi/97, Assessment years 92-93 and 93-94 was challenged before the Delhi High Court by filing an appeal under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, being ITA No. 242 of 2003. When ITA No. 242 of 2003 came up for consideration on 23rd July, 2003, a Division Bench of Delhi High Court by referring to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant that Delhi High Court did not have territorial jurisdiction to deal with the Appeal and as prayed for by the counsel for the Appellant that the Appeal be returned to the appellant for being presented to a Court of competent jurisdiction, passed an order (in view of the aforesaid submissions) that the paper book be returned to the counsel for the appellant for being presented in Himachal Pradesh High Court.

2. Apparently acting in compliance with the aforesaid order passed by Delhi High Court on 23rd July, 2003 in ITA No. 242 of 2003 the appellant filed in this Court the original Memo of Appeal as was presented in Delhi High Court and as apparently was returned to the appellant. No appeal as such has been filed in this Court. What the appellant has filed in this Court is the original Memo of Appeal which the appellant had filed in Delhi High Court and which was returned to the appellant.

3. We entertained a very serious doubt as to whether it was at all permissible for the appellant to have filed the Memo of Appeal as was filed in Delhi High Court in this Court and would the filing of the said Memo of Appeal amount to, and constitute the filing of an appeal in this Court under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act. With a view to help us in removing that doubt, the learned Counsel for the appellant referred to sub-section (7) of Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act and submitted that as per this provision, Code of Civil Procedure would apply to the Appeals filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act and, therefore, it was permissible for the appellant to have adopted the aforesaid course of action. Sub-section (7) of Section 260-A of Income Tax Act reads thus : "Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), relating to appeals to the High Court shall, as far as may be, apply in the case of appeals under this Section.”

4. What is abundantly clear by a bare reading of sub-section (7) (supra) is that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure "relating to appeals to the High Court" alone have been made applicable to the appeals filed under Section 260-A (supra).

5. In the entire Code of Civil Procedure, the only provision relating to the "return" is the one for the "return of plaint" under Order 7 Rule 10. Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads thus: "10. Return of plaint.—(1) Subject to the provisions of Rule 10-A, the plaint shall at any stage of the suit be returned to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted. Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that a Court of appeal or revision may direct, after setting aside the decree passed in a suit, the return of the plaint under this sub-rule. (2) .............................................................................................."

6. Neither Order 41 nor Order 42, nor for that matter Order 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure contain any provision for the return of a Memo of Appeal. The explanation to Order 7 Rule 10 CPC clearly suggests that even a Court of Appeal or for that matter a Revisional Court may direct for the return of the plaint only after the decree passed in suit and under challenge before it, has been set aside by the Appellate Court or the Revisional Court. Order 7 Rule 10, therefore, applies only to the return of a plaint and this provision cannot be stretched to apply to the return of a Memo of Appeal. Nothing to the contrary contained in a