ITO WARD - 2(2), NOIDA vs. MEHAR CHAND, NOIDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1240/DEL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 November 2022AY 2008-092 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the revenue's challenge to the CIT(A)'s jurisdiction to be a serious matter. Without delving into the merits, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) with proper jurisdiction for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order, alleging a jurisdictional defect because the order was passed after the CIT(A) had retired. The assessee did not challenge the CIT(A)'s jurisdiction.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the jurisdictional validity of the CIT(A)'s order passed after retirement. The Tribunal considered whether to decide on merits or restore the appeal due to the jurisdictional defect.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. N.K. BILLAIYA & SH. KUL BHARAT

Hearing: 10/11/2022Pronounced: 10/11/2022

Appellant Sh. Sanjai Kumar Yadav, Addl. CIT Ms. Niharika Kucchal, Advocate on behalf of standing Counsel Shri Zoheb Hussain Respondent None Date of hearing: 10/11/2022 Date of Pronouncement: 10/11/2022 ORDER

PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM:

1.

This appeal by the revenue is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-1, Noida dated 31.12.2018 pertaining to A.Y.2008-09.

2.

The sum and substance of the grievance of the revenue is that there is a jurisdictional defect in as much as the order was passed by the CIT(A)-1, Noida after he was retired.

3.

It is surprising to see that the revenue itself is questioning the jurisdiction of its own CIT(A) which allegation cannot be brushed aside lightly.

4.

Since the appeal has been allowed by the first appellate authority, therefore, the assessee would not have approached this Tribunal challenging the jurisdiction of the appellate authority. However, since the revenue has filed the appeal challenging the very jurisdiction of the CIT(A), therefore, without going into the merits of the case we deem it fit to restore the impugned appeal back to the files of the CIT(A) having proper jurisdiction over the assessee. In the interest of justice and fair play the appeal is restored back to the files of the CIT(A) to be decided afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose. 6. Decision announced in the open court on 10.11.2022.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →