Harris Zain vs The Income Tax Settlement ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 17910 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 17910 Mad
Judgement Date : 2 September, 2021

Madras High Court

Harris Zain vs The Income Tax Settlement ... on 2 September, 2021

                                                                     W.P. Nos. 29292 and 29293 of 2004

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED :02.09.2021

                                                      CORAM

                                   THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

                                        W.P. Nos. 29292 and 29293 of 2004 and
                                         W.M.P. Nos. 35557 to 35560 of 2004

                     Harris Zain                                       .... Petitioner in
                                                                     W.P. No. 29292of 2004

                     Rubab Harris                                      .... Petitioner in
                                                                     W.P. No. 29293of 2004

                                                         ..vs..

                     1. The Income Tax Settlement Commission,
                        Additional Bench,
                        488-489, Anna Salai,
                        Chennai - 600 035.

                     2. The Union of India,
                        Represented by The Chairman,
                        Central Block of Direct Taxes,
                        North Block, New Delhi.

                     3. The Commissioner of Income Tax,
                        Central, Cochin.

                     4. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
                        Central Circle-I (3), Ernakulam.                   ... Respondents

in both W.Ps'

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P. Nos. 29292 and 29293 of 2004

Common Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records on the files of the first respondent herein in settlement Application No.13/CHN/4/95/IT and Application No.682/56/97-IT dated 24.03.2004.


                                               For Petitioner
                                               in both W.Ps'       : N.Prasad

                                               For Respondents

in both W.Ps' : Settlement Commission for R1 Mrs.Hema Muralikrishanan Senior Standing Counsel for R2 Mr.A.N.R.Jayaprathap Junior Standing Counsel for R3&R4

COMMON ORDER

The Writ Petitions are filed challenging the orders passed by the

Income Tax Settlement Commission. The Preliminary objection raised

regarding the maintainability of the Writ Petitions is that the petitioners as

well as the Settlement Commission are not falling with the territorial

jurisdiction of the High Court of Madras and therefore, the Writ Petitions

are not entertained. On the similar issue, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this

Court in W.A. No. 717 of 2020 passed an order on 14.09.2020 and the

relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P. Nos. 29292 and 29293 of 2004

"7. To sum up the legal position as referred to in the above decision, the doctrine of dominus litis or doctrine of situs of the appellate Tribunal do not go together; and a dominus litis indicates that the suitor has more than one option, whereas the situs of an Appellate Tribunal refers to only one High Court wherein the appeal can be preferred. Further, it was pointed out that situs of a Tribunal may vary from time to time and it could be Delhi or some other place or Chennai as in the case on hand and the determination of jurisdiction of the High Court should be based on the relevant Statute and that the Parliament never contemplated to have a situation of this nature and if the cause of action doctrine is given effect to, invariably more than one High Court may have jurisdiction, which is not contemplated.

8. As noted above, the appellant is an assessee on the file of the third respondent namely the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle 4(1)(Inv.), IV Floor, Kendriya Sadan, Koramangala, Bangalore. The Appellate Authority, before whom the assessee filed the apppeal is the second respondent herein namely the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-III, Bangalore. Therefore, the learned

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P. Nos. 29292 and 29293 of 2004

Single Judge was justified in rejecting the writ petition on the ground that due to lack of territorial jurisdiction, the order passed by the Settlement Commission did not call for interference.

9. In the light of the above, the writ appeal is dismissed leaving it open to the appellant to move the High Court of Karnataka if they are so advised. It is also made clear that the above writ appeal has been dismissed solely on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction to entertain the appeal / writ petition and the merits of the case of the appellant have not been dealt with in this judgment. No costs. Consequently, the connected CMP is also dismissed."

2. In view of the principles laid down in the Judgment cited supra, the

Writ Petitions stand dismissed. Leaving it open to the petitioners to move

the High Court of Kerala having jurisdiction if they are so advised. It is

made clear that the Writ Petitions have been dismissed solely on the ground

of lack of territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petitions and the

merits of the case of the petitioners have not been dealt with.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P. Nos. 29292 and 29293 of 2004

3. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions stand dismissed. However, there

shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous

Petitions are closed.

02.09.2021

Index:Yes Speaking order