Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal for AY 2017-18 against an order passed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer was located in Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh, while the appeal was filed before the Delhi benches of the ITAT.
Held
The tribunal held that the territorial jurisdiction of the ITAT benches is determined by the "situs" of the Assessing Officer. Since the AO was not in Delhi's jurisdiction, the Delhi ITAT lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
Key Issues
Whether the Delhi benches of the ITAT have territorial jurisdiction to hear an appeal when the Assessing Officer is situated outside Delhi's jurisdiction, as per the ITAT's Standing Order.
Sections Cited
144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Seraj Ahmed, Vs Income Tax Officer, Yusufpur, Mohammadabad, Ward-1(4), District-Ghazipur, Bhadohi, Uttar Pradesh-233227 Uttar Pradesh-233227 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ARYPA9999B Assessee by: None Revenue by : Sh. Yogeshwar Sharma, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 15.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 15.05.2025 ORDER
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the Addl./JCIT(1), Gurugram’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1061401279(1) dated 23.02.2024, in proceedings u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
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 4. Faced with this situation, learned counsel submits that Delhi benches of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal very well have jurisdiction 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 jurisdiction 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 jurisdiction. 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 jurisdiction 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.