DCIT, PUNE vs. M/S. PURPLE DEVELOPERES, PUNE
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The ITAT Pune Bench held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The tribunal's jurisdiction is determined by the location of the Assessing Officer's office, not the assessee's.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT Pune Bench concerning AY 2006-07. The Assessing Officer's office was located in Mumbai, and the CIT(A) also passed the order in Mumbai.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the territorial jurisdiction of the ITAT Bench to hear the appeal, based on the situs of the Assessing Officer.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- PCIT v. ABC Papers Ltd.181 citing447 ITR 1 · 2022 · SC · Read judgment
- MSPL Ltd. v. PCIT8 citing436 ITR 199 · 2021
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE „B‟ BENCHES :: PUNE
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE „B‟ BENCHES :: PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (A.Y. 2006-07) DCIT, Circle-2, Pune vs M/s. Purple Developers, Cloud-9, Survey No.46/1+2, Next to Sunshree Woods, NIBM Road, Kondhawa, Near Mahmad Wadi, Pune. PAN: AAGFP 4055 J Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Subas P. Bora, CA Revenue by : Shri M.G. Jasnani, DR Date of hearing : 13/11/2023 Date of pronouncement : 14/11/2023 ORDER Per SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM:
This Revenue‟s appeal for the A.Y. 2006-07, is directed against the CIT(A)-26, Mumbai‟s order, dated 04/05/2010 passed in appeal No. CIT(A)-26/IT-84/Addl.15(1)/08-09 in proceedings u/sec. 251 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act').
Heard both the parties at length and case file perused.
2.1 It emerges at the outset from perusal of the Revenue‟s instant appeal file that the Assessing Officer i.e. the Addl. CIT, Range-15(1), Mumbai had framed his assessment u/sec. 143(3) dated 29/12/2008 at Mumbai only. Suffice to say, the CIT(A) has also passed his impugned lower appellate order at Mumbai. The clinching fact which emerges accordingly is that the “situs” of the Assessing Officer herein is at Mumbai only.
2.2 That being the case, we are of the opinion in light of the STANDING ORDER UNDER INCOME-TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) Rules, 1963 notification w.e.f. 01/10/1997, defining territorial jurisdiction of various Benches of the Tribunal, and more particularly 4th para thereof stipulating that “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” read with various landmark decisions i.e. MSPL Ltd. v. PCIT [2021] 436 ITR 199 (Mum.) upheld the [2023] 454 ITR 280 (SC) and CIT v. ABC Paper Ltd. [2022] 447 ITR 01 (SC), that the tribunal‟s Benches at Pune have no jurisdiction to entertain this Revenue‟s appeal for want of “situs” of the Assessing Officer in very terms. We, accordingly, reject the Revenue‟s instant appeal as „returned‟ with liberty to be instituted afresh at the appropriate Bench(s) of the Tribunal as per law. Ordered accordingly.
All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic.
More judgments on Section 251
- Jitendrakumar Bhikhabhai Shrimali, Mehsana vs ITO Ward 1, MehsaanaITA 1290/AHD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- ITO(Exemption), Ward, Jaipur vs Raj Rishi Bhartihari Matsya University…ITA 1167/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Urun Vividh Karyakari Vikas Society, Walwa vs ITO WD-5, SangliITA 472/PUN/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
- Shyam Sunder, Ballabgarh vs ITO, Ward 2(3), WardITA 1339/DEL/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Shyam Sunder, Ballabgarh vs ITO, Ward 2(3), FaridabadITA 1295/DEL/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026