ITO WARD - 2(4), NOIDA vs. PANKAJ GARG, NEW DELHI

This appeal by the revenue is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-1, Noida dated 31.12.2018 pertaining to A.Y.2010-11.

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.

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.

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.