CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD,(SUCCESSOR TO CAPGEMINI INDIA PVT LTD),NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 294/PUN/2018Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 July 2023AY 2012-133 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the territorial jurisdiction of the ITAT bench is determined by the location of the Assessing Officer's office, not the assessee's place of business. Therefore, the Pune bench lacked jurisdiction.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT Pune bench. The assessment was framed by the DCIT in Mumbai. The assessee argued that its business activities were based in Pune.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the territorial jurisdiction of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to hear an appeal when the Assessing Officer's office is in one location and the assessee's business is in another.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144C(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “C” BENCH : PUNE

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

Hearing: 03.07.2023Pronounced: 04.07.2023

ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-2013, is directed against the CIT(A)-55, Mumbai’s, order dated 12.11.2017, passed in Case No.CIT(A)-55/IT-52/DCIT- 14(1)(2)/16/17, in proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“In short Act”].

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2 ITA.No.294/PUN./2018 Capgemini Technology Services India Limited, Navi Mumbai.

2.

It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that the DCIT-14(1)(2) had in fact framed the assessment in issue dated 19.05.2016 at Mumbai. His “situs” has to be treated at Mumbai only in otherwords. That being the case, we invited learned counsel’s attention towards this tribunal’s Standing Order notified w.e.f. 01.10.1997 under the Income Tax [Appellate Tribunal] Rules, 1963 specifying various bench(es) of the tribunal having territorial jurisdiction wherein clause (4) thereof makes it crystal clear 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”. Hon’ble apex court’s recent landmark decision in PCIT vs. ABC Paper Limited [2022] 447 ITR (1) (SC) as well as MSPL Ltd. vs. PCIT [2021] 127 taxmann.com 379 (Bom.); upheld in PCIT vs. MSPL Ltd. [2023] 150 taxmann.com 41 (SC), have also settled the law that it is only the “situs” of the Assessing Officer framing assessment which forms the determinative factor for territorial jurisdiction of the tribunal for the purpose of entertaining the concerned litigant’s appeal in question.

3.

Learned counsel at this stage sought to buttress the assessee’s stand that it has been carrying-out it’s regular business activities from Pune only. We are afraid that such a factor would

1.

3 ITA.No.294/PUN./2018 Capgemini Technology Services India Limited, Navi Mumbai. hardly decide the tribunal’s jurisdiction in foregoing terms. Faced with the situation, we reject the assessee’s instant appeal “as returned” with liberty to file the same afresh before the appropriate bench(es) of the tribunal as per law. We further make it clear that we have not adjudicated upon any of the issues raised in the instant appeal in law as well as on merits, whatsoever. Ordered accordingly.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is dismissed in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 04.07.2023.

More judgments on Section 144C(3)

All 595 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →