ITO WARD - 2(1), GHAZIABAD vs. UMA DEVI, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1481/DEL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 August 2022AY 2009-102 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not have the proper jurisdiction over the cases. Consequently, the matters were remanded back to the appropriate CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A). The Revenue's representative argued that the CIT(A) lacked jurisdiction over the cases as the assessee was from Ghaziabad. Therefore, the appeals should have been adjudicated by the CIT(A) with the correct jurisdiction.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the jurisdictional competence of the CIT(A) to pass orders in the given cases.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: Dr. B. R. R. KumarShri Anubhav Sharma

For Respondent: Shri M. Baranwal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 20.07.2022Pronounced: 12.08.2022

Heard together (3 matters)

ITA No. 1479/Del/2020
ITA No. 1480/Del/2020
ITA No. 1481/Del/2020

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

ORDER Per Bench:

These are the appeals filed by the revenue against the orders of the ld. CIT(A)-I, Noida dated 28.09.2018.

2.

At the outset, the ld. DR submitted that the ld. CIT(A), Noida do not exercise the jurisdiction over the cases of Ghaziabad, the appeals ought to have been passed by ld. CIT(A) who has the jurisdiction as per the jurisdictional order of the CBDT. Hence, the matters are being remanded back to the file of the ld. CIT(A), Ghaziabad to adjudicate the matter afresh in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

3.

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are allowed for statistical purpose.

Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 12/08/2022.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →