Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 was against an order passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, involving proceedings under Section 147. The Assessing Officer's "situs" was determined to be in Fatehabad, Haryana.
Held
The Tribunal held that according to its Standing Order, the territorial jurisdiction is determined by the "situs" of the Assessing Officer's office. Since Fatehabad district was notified and excluded from Delhi benches' jurisdiction by 01.10.1997, the Delhi benches lacked the territorial jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
Key Issues
Whether the Delhi benches of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal have the territorial jurisdiction to hear an appeal when the Assessing Officer's "situs" is in Fatehabad, Haryana.
Sections Cited
147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sh. Sonu, S/o-Sh. Amir Chand, House Ward-2, No. 42, VPO Bhodia Khera, Rohtak Tehsil & Distt- Fatehabad PAN: BYZPS7734P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 24.07.2025 Date of pronouncement 24.07.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1074766340(1), dated 20.03.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee’s relevant assessment jurisdiction is at Fatehabad (Distt.-Fatehabad), Haryana. And that the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi has confirmed the corresponding regular assessment framed by the Assessing Officer on 05.01.2022. It is in this factual backdrop that the assessee has preferred his instant appeal.
We invited the learned counsel’s kind attention to the fact that the “situs” of the Assessing Officer is at Fatehabad which comes within the territorial jurisdiction of Chandigarh benches of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Faced with this situation, learned counsel submits that Delhi benches of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal very well have jurisdiction to entertain this assessee’s instant appeal; and more particularly, in light of the fact that the same is directed against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s action exercising his jurisdiction forming subject matter of our apt adjudication. We find no merit in the assessee’s instant arguments in light of this tribunal’s STANDING ORDER UNDER INCOME-TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 defining territorial jurisdiction of various
2 | P a g e benches off the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal; as on 01.10.1997 wherein the assessee’s Fatehabad district is not covered under Delhi benches. We wish to make it clear here that not only para 4 of the said STANDING ORDER adopts “situs” of the location of the “office of the Assessing Officer” as the decisive factor but also the Fatehabad district herein stood notified as a district w.e.f. 15.07.1997 and therefore, the same very well stood excluded from Delhi benches jurisdiction at the time of the foregoing notification as on 01.10.1997.
We accordingly dismiss the assessee’s instant appeal for want of territorial jurisdiction of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi with liberty to be instituted afresh before the appropriate benches. It is made clear that delay in such a situation thereof; if any, as on date, shall stand condoned. Ordered accordingly.