KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI BARNAGAR,BARNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, UJJAIN

ITA 3795/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 July 2026AY 2006-073 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 Delhi benches of the ITAT do not have territorial jurisdiction to decide the appeal. This was based on the location of the Assessing Officer and a Supreme Court decision on territorial jurisdiction.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2006-07 was listed for hearing. The assessee did not appear, and the case proceeded ex-parte. A key issue was the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi benches of the ITAT.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the territorial jurisdiction of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) benches. The tribunal had to determine which bench had the authority to hear the appeal based on the situs of the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 02.06.2026Pronounced: 02.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3795/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Vs. Income Tax Officer, Barnagar, Bharatpuri, Runija Road, Badnagar, Ujjain Ujjain, MP PAN: AAALK0160D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Date of hearing 02.06.2026 Date of pronouncement 02.06.2026 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2006-07, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl./JCIT(A)- 1, Gurugram’s order dated 24.02.2026 having DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1086439424(1), dated 24.02.2026 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

ITA No.3795/Del/2026

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-2(1), Ujjain had framed the impugned assessment in assessee’s case on 14.11.2008 followed by the appeal migrated to the NFAC.

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 that their

2 | P a g e

ITA No.3795/Del/2026

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 2nd June, 2026 Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 8th July, 2026. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

3 | P a g e

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →