An order dated August 20, 2020 passed by the President of the Tribunal under rule 4 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 directing that the appeals be transferred from the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal to be heard and determined by the Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal at Mumbai. On a writ petition against the order, a preliminary objection was raised regarding maintainability of the petitions. The Court held that the writ petition was maintainable because the petitioner had no other statutory remedy. Having regard to the mandate of clause (2) of the article 226 of the Constitution, the Bombay High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the petitions. Court also held that the fact that the assessee may have expressed no objection to the transfer of the assessment jurisdiction from the Assessing Officer at Bangalore to the Assessing Officer at Mumbai after assessment for the assessment years covered by the search period, could not be used to non-suit the petitioner in his challenge to the transfer of the appeals from one Bench of the Tribunal to another Bench in a different State and in a different zone. The two were altogether different and had no nexus with each other. That the orders dated March 19, 2020 and August 20, 2020 were wholly unsustainable in law. (AY. 2005-06 to 2008-09)
MSPL Limited v. PCIT (2021) 436 ITR 199 / 202 DTR 117 / 321 CTR 1 (Bom.)(HC)/Editorial : SLP of Revenue is dismissed , PCIT v. MSPL Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 280 /294 Taxman 74 /332 CTR 606 (SC)
S. 255 : Appellate Tribunal-Powers of Tribunal-Tribunal cannot transfer case from Bench falling within jurisdiction of a particular High Court to Bench under jurisdiction of different High Court. [S. 254(1), ITATR, 1963, R. 4., Art. 226]
Thank you