SUNIL BAJRANG MHETRE,VADODARA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER WARD 3(1)(4), AAYKAR BHAVAN VADODARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5199/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 July 2026AY 2020-213 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 its Delhi benches do not have territorial jurisdiction to decide the appeal. This is based on the situs of the Assessing Officer framing the assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2020-21 was filed before the Delhi benches of the ITAT. The original assessment was framed by the Assessing Officer in Vadodara, Gujarat.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the territorial jurisdiction of the ITAT Delhi benches to hear an appeal when the assessment was framed by an officer located outside Delhi.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Pronounced: 07.07.2026

आदेश / ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2020-21, arises

against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl./JCIT(A)-

New Delhi’s order dated 13.03.2026 having DIN and order no.

ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1087306776(1), dated 13.03.2026

involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s 144B of the

Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

ITA 5199/DEL/2026 SUNIL BAJRANG MHETRE

2.

It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that

there arises the first and fundamental issue of this tribunal’s

Delhi benches’ jurisdiction itself since the Income Tax Officer,

Ward-3(1)(4), Vadodara, had framed the impugned assessment in

assessee’s case on 26.11.2024 followed by the appeal migrated to

the NFAC.

3.

Faced with this situation, I hereby quote this Tribunal’s

STANDING ORDER UNDER INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

RULES, 1963 settling the instant issue of territorial jurisdiction of

various Benches as per “location of the office of the Assessing

Officer” in para 4 thereof. I also deem it appropriate to refer

hon’ble apex court’s recent landmark decision in PCIT Vs. ABC

Papers Ltd. (2022) 447 ITR 1 (SC), settling the issue that it is only

the “situs” of the Assessing Officer framing assessment which

forms the decisive factor for the purpose of determining territorial

jurisdiction.

4.

Needless to mention, I wish to clarify here that this

Tribunal’s forgoing STANDING ORDER applicable with effect from

1st November, 1997 has verbatim adopted the “situs” of the

Assessing Officer framing assessment and, therefore, I conclude

ITA 5199/DEL/2026 SUNIL BAJRANG MHETRE

that their lordships’ detailed analysis would apply mutatis mutandis herein as well.

5.

I accordingly conclude that Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s

Delhi benches do not have territorial jurisdiction to decide the

assessee’s instant appeal, subject to a rider that it shall indeed be

at liberty to institute a fresh appeal, if so advised, before the

appropriate benches and delay caused therein as on date, shall

stand condoned.

6.

This assessee’s appeal is dismissed in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open court on 7th July, 2026.

Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 29th July, 2026. f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →