GURMEET SINGH,MANAKPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER PANCHKULA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4992/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 September 2025AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (Judicial Member)1 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the territorial jurisdiction of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal extends only to Mumbai city, Mumbai Suburban and Thane districts. Since the AO who passed the assessment order was based in Panchkula, Haryana, the Mumbai Bench lacked territorial jurisdiction.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, against an order passed by the CIT(A) for AY 2015-16. The assessment order was passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Panchkula, Haryana.

What were the issues?

Whether the Mumbai Bench of the ITAT has territorial jurisdiction to hear an appeal when the assessment order was passed by an AO located outside its jurisdiction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYASHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

For Respondent: Shri B. Laxmikanth, Sr.DR

Date of Hearing – 24/09/2025 Date of Order - 26/09/2025

O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 18.03.2025, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Additional / Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 1, Mumbai, [“learned Additional / Joint CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2015-16.

2.

At the outset, we noticed that the assessment order dated 04.11.2019 under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act was passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Panchkula, Haryana. It is now well settled that the situs of the Assessing Officer (“AO”) who has passed the assessment order shall determine the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal. In this regard, gainful reference can be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in PCIT vs. ABC Papers Ltd., reported in (2022) 447 ITR 1 (SC). It is further pertinent to note that, as per the Standing Order under Income Tax [Appellate Tribunal] Rules, 1963, as amended from time to time, the territorial jurisdiction of the Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal extends to Mumbai City, Mumbai Suburban and Thane Districts of Maharashtra. Therefore, in the present case, it is evident that the Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal do not have any territorial jurisdiction over the assessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward – 5, Panchkula, Haryana. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the present appeal is non-maintainable before the Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal. Accordingly, we dismiss the assessee’s appeal. However, in the interest of justice, liberty is granted to the assessee to file the appeal before the appropriate Bench of the Tribunal as per the Income Tax [Appellate Tribunal] Rules, 1963.

3.

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 26/09/2025

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →