Law: Income Tax Act, 1961

Section: 142,226

Income-tax---Jurisdiction---Territorial jurisdiction of High Court---Meaning of cause of action---Orders of assessment and order rejecting application for rectification of mistakes issued by CIT of Haryana ---Order by CIT pursuant to authorisation by C.B.D.T.---Delhi High Court, has no jurisdiction to consider writ petitions against orders---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961---Constitution of India, Art. 226. If a cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of a High Court, the writ issued by it can extend and run beyond its territorial jurisdiction. The cause of action is a bundle of facts, which would give the plaintiff a right to relief. Any and every fact, though relevant, would not necessarily be included in the bundle of essential facts constituting cause of action. On a writ petition in the Delhi High Court against orders of assessment and - order rejecting - an application for rectification of mistakes passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax in Haryana: Held, dismissing the petition, that so far as the impugned orders of the Income-tax authorities situated within the State of Haryana were concerned, no cause of action had arisen to the petitioner within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi. The orders had been issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Haryana, pursuant to the authorisation made by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Haryana) was again an authority situated beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. The petition did not lie within the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. The petitioner was attempting to stretch the facts and/or the relief sought for by it' so .as to somehow bring the petition within the territorial jurisdiction of High Court of Delhi which could not be allowed. Navin Jindal .v. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Home (1995) 60 DLm 516 (Delhi); State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties AIR 1985 SC 1289; U. P. Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad v. State of U. P. (1995) 4 SCC 738; AIR 1995 SC 2148 and Union of India v. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. (1985) 154 ITR 135; AIR 1984 SC 1264 ref. JUDGMENT The petitioner who, was heard yesterday…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492