DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. KALPATARU PROJECTS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED (EARLIER JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED), GUJARAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6480/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 September 2026AY 2016-174 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable before the ITAT Mumbai Benches due to a lack of jurisdiction. The reasoning was based on the submissions of both parties and the established principle that appeals should be filed before the Benches having jurisdiction over the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The Tribunal noted that the assessment orders were passed by the DCIT, Ahmedabad, and the reassessment order by the NFAC, Delhi. Consequently, the appeals should have been filed before the ITAT Benches located in Ahmedabad. The Tribunal granted the Revenue liberty to file fresh appeals before the appropriate Benches in Ahmedabad, with a condition to file an appropriate application for condonation of delay if required. The period consumed in litigating before the Mumbai Benches was to be excluded from the period of limitation for the fresh appeals. The Tribunal explicitly stated that there could be no miscarriage of justice merely on account of approaching and filing the appeals before the Mumbai Benches instead of the appropriate Benches.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed three appeals (ITA Nos. 6479, 6480 & 6482/Mum/2026) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai Benches, against orders of the CIT(A)-51, Mumbai. These appeals pertained to Assessment Years (AY) 2016-17 and 2017-18. For AY 2016-17, one appeal challenged an assessment order dated 30.11.2018 passed by the DCIT Circle 2(1)(2), Ahmedabad, and another challenged a reassessment order dated 30.03.2022 passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi. For AY 2017-18, an appeal challenged an assessment order dated 18.10.2019 passed by the DCIT Circle 2(1)(2), Ahmedabad. The assessee, Kalpataru Projects International Limited (formerly JMC Projects (India) Limited), argued that the Mumbai Benches lacked jurisdiction, as the assessment orders were passed by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer in Ahmedabad or the NFAC in Delhi, and thus appeals should lie with the Ahmedabad Benches.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT Mumbai Benches have the jurisdiction to hear the appeals filed by the Revenue, given that the assessment and reassessment orders were passed by the DCIT, Ahmedabad, and the NFAC, Delhi, respectively? The Assessee contended that, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. ABC Papers Ltd., jurisdiction lies with the ITAT Benches having jurisdiction over the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which in this case is Ahmedabad, not Mumbai. The Assessee cited decisions of Coordinate Delhi and Ahmedabad Benches in Panalpine World Transport India Private Limited and ACIT vs. Linde Engineering India Private Limited, respectively, which dismissed appeals for lack of jurisdiction in similar circumstances, allowing liberty to refile before the appropriate Benches. The Revenue, through its CIT DR and SR DR, fairly submitted that the assessment orders were passed by the DCIT, Ahmedabad, and the NFAC, Delhi, and sought liberty to move fresh appeals before the Benches having jurisdiction over the jurisdictional Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH; MUMBAI

Before: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE

Hearing: 29.09.2026Pronounced: 30.09.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH; MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 6479, 6480 & 6482/Mum/2026 (Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18)

Dy. Commissioner of Income Kalpataru Projects Tax, Central Circle- 3(3), International Limited (Earlier Mumbai vs. JMC Projects (India) Limited) 406, 4th Floor, Kautilya A-104, Shapath-4 S. G. Bhawan, Bandra Kurla Highway, Azad Society S.O, Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai, Ahmadabad City, Ahmedabad, Maharashtra, 400051. Gujarat, 380015.

PAN: AAACK8387R (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Smt. Amrita Singh, CIT DR & Smt. Nayana K.Kumar, SR DR For Assessee : Shri Saurabh Soparkar, Senior Adv. (Virtually appear) Date of Hearing : 29.09.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 30.09.2026 O R D E R PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M : These are three appeals filed by the Revenue against the respective orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 51, Mumbai [‘Ld.CIT(A)’] pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17 and 2017-18.

2.

For Assessment Year 2016-17, the Revenue has moved an appeal in ITA No.6479/Mum/2026 against the order of ld. CIT(A)- 51, Mumbai passed u/s 250 dated 27.03.2026 arising out of assessment proceedings

ITA No. 6479, 6480 & 6482/Mum/2026; A.Y. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Kalpataru Projects International Limited (Earlier JMC Projects (India) Limited) under section 143(3) dated 30.11.2018 passed by DCIT Circle 2(1)(2), Ahmedabad and another appeal for A.Y 2016-17 in ITA No. 6480/Mum/2026 against the order of ld. CIT(A)-51, Mumbai passed u/s 250 dated 31.03.2026 arising out of reassessment proceedings under section 147 r/w section 144 r/w section 144B vide order dated 30.03.2022 passed by National Faceless Assessment centre, Delhi. For Assessment Year 2017-18, the Revenue has moved an appeal in ITA No. 6482/Mum/2026 against the order of ld. CIT(A)-51, Mumbai passed u/s 250 dated 27.03.2026 arising out of assessment proceedings under section 143(3) dated 18.10.2019 passed by DCIT Circle 2(1)(2), Ahmedabad.

3.

During the course of hearing, the ld. Senior Counsel for the assessee, Shri Saurabh Soparkar, submitted that the respective assessment orders dated 30.11.2018 for A.Y 2016-17, and dated 18.10.2019 for A.Y 2017- 18 were passed by the DCIT Circle 2(1)(2), Ahmedabad, being the jurisdictional Assessing officer ,and reassessment order dated 30.03.2022 for A.Y 2016-17 was passed by the NFAC, Delhi and therefore, in light of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. ABC Papers Ltd. [2022] 141 taxmann.com 332 (SC), the jurisdiction, over all these matters where the assessment orders have been passed by the jurisdictional Assessing officer or the reassessment order passed by the NFAC, Delhi, lies before the Benches of the Tribunal having jurisdiction over the Jurisdictional Assessing officer based out of Ahmedabad and not before the Mumbai Benches. It was accordingly submitted that all these appeals so filed by the Revenue therefore need to be dismissed with liberty to file the appeals before the Benches of the Tribunal having jurisdiction over the Jurisdictional Assessing officer based out of Ahmedabad.

ITA No. 6479, 6480 & 6482/Mum/2026; A.Y. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Kalpataru Projects International Limited (Earlier JMC Projects (India) Limited) 4. It was submitted that the Coordinate Delhi Benches in case of Panalpine World Transport India Private Limited vs Add.CIT, Special Range -7, New Delhi (ITA No. 2168/Del/2019 dated 24.03.2023), and Coordinate Ahmedabad Benches in the case of ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1) vs Linde Engineering India Private Limited (in ITA No. 2230, 2246 & 221/Ahd/2025& CO No. 10,11,97/Ahd/2025 dated 13.08.2026) have dismissed the appeals due to lack of jurisdiction under the identical fact pattern with the liberty to file the appeals before the appropriate Benches of the Tribunal.

5.

The ld. CIT DR, Smt. Amrita Singh and ld. SR DR, Smt. Nayana K.Kumar were heard who have fairly submitted that the assessment orders in these cases were passed by the DCIT, Circle 2(1)(2), Ahmedabad, being the jurisdictional Assessing officer and by NFAC, Delhi and therefore, the Revenue seeks liberty to move fresh appeals before the Benches having jurisdiction over the jurisdictional Assessing officer.

6.

After hearing both the parties and considering the material available on record, we find that these appeals are not maintainable before the ITAT Mumbai Benches due to lack of jurisdiction.

7.

At the same time, the Revenue is at liberty to file fresh appeals before the appropriate Benches having jurisdiction over the jurisdictional Assessing officer, DCIT, Circle 2(1)(2), Ahmedabad with appropriate application seeking condonation of delay, if so required. The Revenue shall place on record the relevant facts leading to inadvertent filing of present appeals before the Mumbai Benches which are otherwise filed within the stipulated limitation period.

8.

Where the appeals are so filed by the Revenue before the appropriate Benches, the period consumed in litigating at Mumbai Benches be

ITA No. 6479, 6480 & 6482/Mum/2026; A.Y. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Kalpataru Projects International Limited (Earlier JMC Projects (India) Limited) excluded from the period of limitation, given that the appeals in the present form have been filed well in time before the Mumbai Benches and there cannot be any miscarriage of justice merely on account of approaching and filing the appeals before the Mumbai Benches instead of appropriate Benches having jurisdiction over the matter.

9.

With the aforesaid terms and observations, all these appeals are dismissed for statistical purposes as not maintainable.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 30.09.2026

Sd/- Sd/- ANIKESH BANERJEE VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)

Mumbai, Dated: 30.09.2026 Karishma J. Pawar, SR. PS

Copy to : 1) The Appellant 2) The Respondent 3) The CIT concerned 4) The D.R, ITAT, Mumbai 5) Guard file

By Order

Dy./Asst. Registrar I.T.A.T, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →