ACIT, VARANASI vs. M/S MOTIWALA INDUSTRIES LTD., VARANASI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the appeal should have been filed before the Delhi benches of ITAT, as per the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. ABC Papers Limited, which dictates jurisdiction based on the AO's location. Therefore, the appeal filed in Varanasi was dismissed on technical grounds.
What were the facts?
The revenue filed an appeal before the Varanasi benches of ITAT, challenging an order that partly allowed the assessee's appeal. The assessment order was passed by an Assessing Officer located in Delhi. The assessee had gone into voluntary liquidation.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the correct jurisdiction for filing the appeal before the ITAT, considering the location of the Assessing Officer and the Supreme Court's ruling on the matter.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CIRCUIT BENCH : VARANASI
Before: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN & SHRI AMIT SHUKLA
BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2000-01 ACIT, Vs M/s Motiwala Industries Ltd., Circle-3, Motiwala Industrial Estate, Varanasi. P.O. Bhullanpur, PAC, Varanasi – 221 004. PAN: AAACM4877G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri A.K. Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 25.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 26.09.2023 ORDER
PER B.R. BASKARAN, AM:
The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 26-03-2014 passed by Ld CIT(A)-VIII, New Delhi and it relates to the assessment year 2001- 02.
This is second round of proceeding. In the first round, the assessing officer had determined the total income at Rs.7,28,40,111/- as against the NIL income returned by the assessee. When the matter reached the ITAT, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of AO. Accordingly, the assessing officer, Ward-5(4), Delhi, vide his order dated 18-12-2006, determined the total income at Rs.10,29,81,978/- in the second round. The Ld CI(A)-VIII, New Delhi, vide his order dated 26-03- 2014, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, the revenue has filed this appeal before Varanasi benches of ITAT.
In the meantime, a technical issue was noticed by the Tribunal, i.e., the co- ordinate bench, vide its interim order dated 12-01-2023, had expressed the view that the correct jurisdiction to deal with this appeal would be with Delhi benches of ITAT, since the assessing officer located in Delhi has passed the order. In support of the above said view, the co-ordinate bench has referred to the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. ABC Papers Limited (Civil Appeal No. 4252 of 2022 dated 18-08-2022). Accordingly, the registry was directed to place the above said interim order passed by the co-ordinate bench before Hon’ble President. We notice that the Hon’ble President, vide his order dated 07-02-2023, has directed the registry to call for the comments of Ld VP (Lucknow Zone). Accordingly, the Hon’ble Vice President has recorded his comments on 08-02-2023 as under:-
“In view of the observation of the Bench that the correct jurisdiction to hear the appeal vests with ITAT, Delhi Benches, New Delhi, keeping in view the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Pr. CIT-1, Chandigarh Vs. ABC Papers Limited, in Civil Appeal No.4252 of 2022, vide order dated 18-08-2022, the Bench may consider disposing of the appeal, on re-fixation thereof, as not competent, having not been filed at the proper place of jurisdiction.”
Accordingly, the appeal came to be fixed before this bench.
It is pertinent to note that the assessee herein has gone into voluntary liquidation and the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad has fixed the winding up date as 23.11.2006. Accordingly, Shri Rajneesh Kumar Singh, the official liquidator has written a letter dated 16-01-2023 stating that the appeal may be decided on merits.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We heard Ld D.R on this preliminary issue and perused the record. As noticed earlier, the assessment order has been passed by the Assessing officer located in Delhi and hence as per the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ABC Papers Limited (supra), the jurisdiction would lie before Delhi benches of Tribunal. However, the revenue has filed the appeal before Varanasi benches of ITAT on the plea that the jurisdiction of the assessee has been transferred to Varanasi. However, as per the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above said case, the jurisdiction would continue to be decided on the basis of the jurisdiction of the assessing officer, who passed the order. Accordingly, we are of the view that the revenue should have filed the appeal before the Delhi benches of ITAT.
In view of the above, we dismiss the appeal of the revenue on this technical ground. However, the revenue may prefer a fresh appeal before the Delhi benches along with the petition for condoning the delay citing the reasons for the delay in filing before the Delhi benches, if so advised.
In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026