DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. BARAMATI AGRO LIMITED , PUNE

ITTPA 376/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 September 2026AY 2020-2115 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2020-21. The Ld. CIT(A) had quashed the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) r.w.s. 144B. The Revenue's primary contention was that the Ld. CIT(A) lacked jurisdiction. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) had passed an order under section 92CA(3) accepting the assessee's transaction value, with no transfer pricing adjustment proposed. The assessee argued that the TPO's order did not result in any variation, thus the assessee was not an 'eligible assessee' under section 144C, making the draft assessment order and subsequent assessment order void. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Ld. CIT(A)'s order quashing the assessment.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal lacked merit and dismissed both grounds related to jurisdiction. The Tribunal noted that the Faceless Appeal Center, a unit of the Revenue, allocated the assessee's appeal to the Ld. CIT(A), Pune-13. The Revenue, through the Principal CIT, Pune, then raised a jurisdictional objection. Crucially, the Revenue did not raise any objection before the Ld. CIT(A) when the appeal was pending, despite being aware of it, as evidenced by the AO's admission of receiving the appeal memo. The Tribunal found it unacceptable for the Revenue to raise a jurisdictional issue at this stage after the Ld. CIT(A) had already decided the appeal. Regarding the interpretation of the CBDT Notification, the Tribunal found that reading all three conditions (TPO order, ALP grounds, related penalties) together led to an absurd interpretation, suggesting that not all conditions needed to be satisfied simultaneously for the Ld. CIT(A) to have jurisdiction. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's interpretation that the Ld. CIT(A) had jurisdiction. Since the Revenue did not raise any grounds on the merits of the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, the Tribunal did not comment on them. The appeal was dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-13, Pune erred in quashing the assessment order dated 30.10.2023 on technical grounds, without having valid jurisdiction over the case (turning on the interpretation of CBDT Notification dated 13th October 2022 and Section 144C). Revenue's Contention: The Ld. CIT(A) lacked jurisdiction as per the CBDT Notification dated 13th October 2022. The notification grants jurisdiction to Ld. CIT(A), Pune-13 over cases where an order has been passed by a TPO and one or more grounds of appeal relate to Arm's Length Price (ALP) determination and related penalties. In this case, the TPO accepted the assessee's transaction value, proposing no adjustment, and the assessee did not challenge related penalties. Assessee's Contention: The Ld. CIT(A) had jurisdiction. The assessee contended that since the TPO proposed no adjustment, the assessee was not an 'eligible assessee' under Section 144C(15)(b), as no variation arose from the TPO's order. Consequently, the AO's issuance of a Draft Assessment Order under Section 144C was without jurisdiction. The assessee also argued that the appeal was automatically allotted to the Ld. CIT(A) and the Revenue did not raise any jurisdictional objection before the Ld. CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144C,Section 144B,Section 92CA,Section 153,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “C”, PUNE

Before: SHRI Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Pune-13 [Ld.CIT(A)], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) for AY 2020-21 on 27.11.2025, emanating from the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 30.10.2023. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal :

“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-13, Pune erred in quashing the assessment order dated 30.10.2023 on technical grounds, without having valid juri iction over the case.

2.

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case an

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 144C

All 3,666 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →