Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal arose from an order of the PCIT, Rohtak, who treated a regular assessment as erroneous under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer's situs was in Fatehabad, which falls under the territorial jurisdiction of the Chandigarh benches of the ITAT, not the Delhi benches.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal was not maintainable before the Delhi benches due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. The Standing Order defining territorial jurisdiction, as on 01.10.1997, excluded Fatehabad district from the Delhi benches' jurisdiction.
Key Issues
Whether the Delhi benches of the ITAT have territorial jurisdiction to entertain an appeal when the Assessing Officer's situs is in Fatehabad, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Chandigarh benches as per the Standing Order.
Sections Cited
263
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman
Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Anil Tuteja, Vs Pr. CIT, H. No. 326, Ward No. 11, G. T. Road, Rohtak, Fatehabad, Haryana-125050 Haryana-124001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ABIPT8143Q Assessee by : Sh. Suraj Bhan Nain, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Rajesh Kumar CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 13.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 13.05.2025 ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2018-19, arises against the PCIT, Rohtak’s DIN & order No. ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2022–23/1051398797(1) dated 27.03.2023, in proceedings u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee’s relevant assessment jurisdiction is at Fatehabad (distt. Fatehabad), Haryana. And that the learned PCIT, Rohtak has treated the corresponding regular assessment framed in his case on 30.01.2021 as an erroneous one causing prejudice to
We invited the learned counsel’s kind attention to the fact that the “situs” of the Assessing Officer is at Fatehabad which comes within the territorial jurisdiction of Chandigarh benches of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
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 PCIT, Rohtak’s action exercising his section 263 revision jurisdiction forming subject matter of our apt adjudication. 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 off the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal; as on 01.10.1997 wherein the assessee’s Fatehabad district is not covered under Delhi benches. 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 but also the Fatehabad district herein stood notified as a district w.e.f. 15.07.1997 and therefore, the same very well stood excluded
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.