SIRAJ AHMED,DARJI MAHAL vs. ITO-1(4) BHADOHI, BHADOHI

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

It emerges during the course of hearing that “situs” of the assessee’s Assessing Officer framing regular assessment is in Uttar Pradesh as he is stated to have been assessed at Ghazipur by the learned ITO-3(5), Ghazipur. Seraj Ahmed 2 4. Faced with this situation, learned counsel submits that Delhi benches of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal very well have juri iction to entertain this assessee’s instant appeal; and more particularly, in light of the fact that the same is directed against the Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Gurugram lower appellate order. We find no merit in the assessee’s instant arguments in light of this tribunal’s STANDING ORDER UNDER INCOME-TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 defining territorial juri iction of various benches of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal; as on 01.10.1997 wherein “situs” of the assessee’s Assessing Officer is not covered under Delhi benches juri iction. We wish to make it clear here that not only para 4 of the said STANDING ORDER adopts “situs” of the location of the “office of the Assessing Officer” as the decisive factor in such an instance. We further quote PCIT Vs. ABC Paper Ltd. (2022) 447 ITR 1 (SC) deciding the very issue against the assessee.

We accordingly dismiss the assessee’s instant appeal for want of territorial juri iction of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi with liberty to be instituted afresh before the appropriate benches. It is made clear that delay in such a situation thereof; if any, as on date, shall stand condoned. Ordered accordingly. Seraj Ahmed 3 6. This assessee’s appeal is dismissed in above terms. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 15/05/2025. (Satbeer Singh Godara)