M/S UNION BANK OF INDIA (E-ANDHRA BANK),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1675/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 December 2023AY 2016-175 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable before the Mumbai benches as the Assessing Officer was located in Hyderabad. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - I, Chandigarh Vs. ABC Papers Limited, the Tribunal returned the appeals.

What were the facts?

The assessee and the revenue filed appeals before the Mumbai ITAT. Both parties contended that the Assessing Officer was based in Hyderabad, and therefore, the appeals were not maintainable before the Mumbai benches. They requested a transfer to the Hyderabad benches.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the correct jurisdiction for filing appeals before the ITAT, specifically whether it should be based on the location of the ITAT bench or the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JM

For Appellant: Shri S Ananthan CA

For Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT DR

Hearing: 30.11.2023Pronounced: 21.12.2023

Union Bank of India (erstwhile Andhra Bank) for A.Y. 2016-17, against the appellate order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [the learned CIT (A)] dated 17th March, 2023, wherein the appeal filed against the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 21st December, 2018, by the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Hyderabad, (the learned Assessing Officer), was partly allowed.

The learned Assessing Officer is also aggrieved with the above appellate order and has filed an appeal in ITA No.1720/Mum/2023.

It is claim of both the parties that in this case the Assessing officer who passed the order is based at Hyderabad and therefore the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear these appeal is at Hyderabad benches. Therefore, same may be transferred to Hyderabad Bench. To show the jurisdiction of the learned Assessing Officer, it was stated that according to the return of income jurisdiction lies at ACIT, Circle 1(1), Hyderabad. It was further mentioned that assessment order is also passed by ACIT, Circle 1(1), Hyderabad, on 21st December, 2018.

The learned Authorized Representative also submitted that identical issue arose before the co-ordinate Bench at Kolkata, where the appeal arising out of the assessment order passed by the learned Assessing Officer at Indore,

Both the parties prayed that their appeal may be dismissed as not maintainable and directed to file the appeal at Hyderabad Benches with the condonation of delay to be excluded till the date of this order. In short, both the parties submit that these appeals may be transferred to Hyderabad Bench in substance.

We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities.

Honourable Supreme court in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - I, Chandigarh Vs. ABC Papers Limited [Neutral Citation: 2022/INSC/844][in Civil Appeal No. 4252 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 23352 of 2019), Civil Appeal No. 4253 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 25541/2019) and Civil Appeal No. 3480 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8146/2022)MANU/SC/1016/2022] has held that “17. Keeping the above principle in mind, we will now return to the inquiry into the appropriate High Court for filing an appeal against an order of a bench of the ITAT exercising jurisdiction over more than one state. We notice that the issue has already fallen for consideration before a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi way back in 1978 in the case of Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta. Having considered the matter in detail, the High Court of Delhi held that the "most

(I) As benches of the ITAT exercise jurisdiction over more than one state, Explanation to Standing Order No. 1 of 1954 and Standing Order No. 1 of 1967 issued under the Rules prescribe that, the jurisdiction of the ITAT should be based on the location of the Assessing Officer. The same principle should apply for determining the jurisdiction of the High Court for an appeal against the decision of the ITAT.

(II) It would be appropriate for the ITAT to refer a question of law to the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer or the CIT which has decided the case is located, as these authorities would be bound to follow the decision of the concerned High Court.

(III) This interpretation will also be in consonance with the expression "in relation with any State, the High Court of that State" provided in the definition of the "High Court" in Section 66(8) (under the present 1961 Act, it is Section 269).

(IV) The appeals and references cannot be made to a High Court only on the basis that a bench of the ITAT is located within the jurisdiction of the said High Court, as it will create an anomalous situation for that as well as other High Courts.

(V) In view of the doctrine of precedents and the Rule of binding efficacy of law laid down by a High Court within its territorial jurisdiction, a question of law arising for decision in a reference should be determined by the High Court which exercises territorial jurisdiction over the situs of the Assessing Officer (Suresh Desai).

In the result, appeals are returned and for statistical purposes are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 21.12. 2023.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →