J U D G E M E N T

Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:

Introduction

1. The central question that arises for consideration before this Bench is whether the words "the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner" in Section 260A (2) (a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') mean only the 'jurisdictional' Principal or Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT) or could it include any CIT including the CIT (Judicial)?

2. The question assumes significance in light of the stand of the Revenue that unless the 'jurisdictional' CIT receives a certified copy of the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), the limitation of 120 days within which an appeal has to be filed does not commence. It requires to be clarified at the outset that the expressions 'Revenue' and 'Department' are used interchangeably throughout the judgment. Both expressions refer to the Income Tax Department.

Background facts in ITA 755 & 756 of 2015

3. In I.T.A. Nos. 755 and 756 of 2015 are appeals by the Revenue, through the Principal CIT Delhi-IV under Section 260-A of the Act against a common order dated 29th October, 2014 passed by the ITAT in a large batch of 115 appeals. Both appeals were first filed on 25th August, 2015. Para 8 of both memoranda of appeal state that the impugned order of the ITAT "was received in the office of the Appellant on 28th April, 2015". Enclosed with both the appeals was only a typed copy of the impugned order of the ITAT. The Revenue proceeded to compute limitation on that basis and claimed, therefore, that the appeal was filed within time on 25th August, 2015.

4. The Court perused the photocopy of the certified copy of the impugned order, dated 29th October 2014 of the ITAT. The date stamp on the top right hand corner of the said order showed that it was delivered to the office of the CIT, Ghaziabad on 19th December, 2014. The left hand bottom corner contained an endorsement of the Tax Assistant dated 22/23rd December, 2014. The explanation offered was that at the time the appeals were heard before the ITAT, the CIT (Ghaziabad) was the concerned CIT as far as this Assessee was concerned. On the date of the dispatch of the impugned order of the ITAT, the memo of parties in the appeal before the ITAT showed the address of the CIT at Ghaziabad. Therefore, the certified copy of the order was sent to him and received by him on 19th December, 2014. Pursuant to certain administrative orders issued by the Income Tax Department ('Department') the jurisdiction relating to the Assessee was transferred to the CIT, Delhi-IV. The ITAT was, therefore, asked to send the certified copy of its order to the 'concerned' CIT, Delhi-IV. It was only after receiving the certified copy on 28th April 2015 that the said CIT Delhi-IV took a decision regarding filing of the appeals.

Background facts in ITA 52 of 2015

5. This appeal by the Revenue through the CIT-7 is against an order dated 16th May 2014 of the ITAT. At the hearing of the appeal on 1st September 2015, counsel for the Assessee raised a preliminary objection as regards limitation. It was pointed out by him that the photocopy of the certified copy of the impugned order of the ITAT bore a date stamp which showed that a copy had been received in the office of the CIT (Judicial) on 23rd July 2014. There were two other date stamps on the first page. One dated 25th July 2014 was in Hindi and was of the CIT, Central, New Delhi. The other was the stamp of the Office of CIT, Delhi- V with the date of 19th September, 2014. In para 6 of the memorandum of appeal, it was stated that the impugned order of the ITAT was served on the CIT-7 on 29th September, 2014 although there was no such date stamp anywhere on the first page of the photocopy of the impugned order. The counsel for the Assessee therefore contended that if a copy of the impugned order was available with the CIT (Judicial) on 23rd July 2014 or with the CIT (Central) on 25th July, 2014, then the present appeal which has been filed on