Judgment 1. This D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.7/2014, filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-III, arises out of an order dated 17.12.2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal) in ITA Nos.964/JP/2011 for the Assessment Year 2008-09, 739/JP/2012 for the Assessment Year 2009-10 and 819/JP/2013 for Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Tribunal decided the matter of M/s. Saraf Exports, RIICO Industrial Area, Sardarsahar, District Churu, arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Jaipur dated 23.08.2011, which had arisen from the assessment order dated 24.11.2010, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Jhunjhunu. 3. An application has been filed by the respondent-assessee to transfer the matter to the Principal Seat of Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur, as according to the applicant, the ordinary jurisdiction of the Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had to be determined by the place of business or residence of the assessee. It is submitted that a similar question is pending consideration in an appeal in the High Court at Jodhpur, as to whether the Income Tax Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in such a case where the place of business or residence of the assessee is situate within the jurisdiction of the Principal Seat of the Rajasthan High Court, the Appeal will be maintainable at its Bench at Jaipur. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-III, that the jurisdiction of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is determined by the Standing Orders issued under the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1963'), in which under item Nos.16 & 17 in the table under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the Rules of 1963, in supersession of the Standing Order No.1 of 1987, dated 17.07.1987, arising from proceeding of assessment in District Jhunjhunu, is at Jaipur Bench. Item Nos.16 & 17 of the Rules of 1963 are quoted as below: “16. Jaipur Bench (1) -Rajasthan (Excluding the Districts of Banswara, Barmer, Bhilwara, Bikaner, Chittorgarh, Churu, Dungarpur, Jaisalmer, Jalore, Jodhpur, Nagaur, Pali, Rajsamand, Sirohi, Sriganganagar and Udaipur). 17. Jodhpur Bench (1)-Districts of Banswara, Barmer, Bhilwara, Bikaner, Chittorgarh, Churu, Dungarpur, Jaisalmer, Jalore, Jodhpur, Nagaur, Pali Rajasamand, Sirohi, Sirganganaer and Udaipur of Rajasthan.” 5. Jaipur Bench (1) -Rajasthan (Excluding the Districts of Banswara, Barmer, Bhilwara, Bikaner, Chittorgarh, Churu, Dungarpur, Jaisalmer, Jalore, Jodhpur, Nagaur, Pali, Rajsamand, Sirohi, Sriganganagar and Udaipur). 17. Jodhpur Bench (1)-Districts of Banswara, Barmer, Bhilwara, Bikaner, Chittorgarh, Churu, Dungarpur, Jaisalmer, Jalore, Jodhpur, Nagaur, Pali Rajasamand, Sirohi, Sirganganaer and Udaipur of Rajasthan.” 5. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-III-appellant, that Note 4 appended to the table provides in more than clear terms that the jurisdiction of the Bench will not be determined by the place of business or residence of the assessee, but by the location of the office of the Assessing Officer. Note 4 provides as follows: “4. The ordinary jurisdiction of the Bench will be determined not by the place of business or residence of the assessee but by the location of the office of the Assessing Officer.” 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Commissioner of Income Tax Jaipur-III has also relied on the principle of merger explained in the judgment of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Justice S.B. Sinha [ (1999) 237 ITR 268 ], in which the Division Bench held as follows: “The above observations, in my opinion, are applicable on all fours in this case. The orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) merged in the appellate order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, "D" Bench, Calcutta, which lies outside the territorial jurisdiction of this court. If this court cannot issue a writ to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at Calcutta it is plain that it cannot also issue any direction to it to state the case and refer a question of law. As a matter of fact, as noticed above, the application under Section 256(1) of the Act, preferred by the Department was considered and decided by the Appellate Tribunal at Calcutta and, therefore, if they so wanted they should have filed the application seeking direction to it to state the case and refer the question of law, in the Calcutta High Court. As pointed out above, in view of the provisions of Section 269 of the Act, there can hardly be any doubt that the High Court in relation to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, is the Calcutta High Court and not the Patna High Court.” 7. As pointed out above, in view of the provisions of Section 269 of the Act, there can hardly be any doubt that the High Court in relation to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, is the Calcutta High Court and not the Patna High Court.” 7. The Rules of 1963 clearly define the jurisdiction of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in Rajasthan in item Nos.16 & 17, and that Note 4 clarifies that the jurisdiction of the Bench (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) will not be determined by the location of the office of the Assessing Officer. 8. In the present case, the office of the Assessing Officer is situate at Jhunjhunu, and thus, the Jaipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had the jurisdiction to decide the Appeal. The orders of the Assessing Authority and Appellate orders have merged in the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at Jaipur, and thus the Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan High Court has the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the Appeal under Section 260A of the Act. The doubts, if any, have been clarified by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench, with which we respectfully agree. 9. In view of the above, we are of the view that this Income Tax Appeal was rightly entertained for hearing at the Jaipur Bench of this Court. 10. The application, for transfer of the present Appeal to the Principal Seat of Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur, is consequently rejected.