DILIP WADHWANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-3(1)-JU, JODHPUR

ITA 18/JPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 September 2026AY 2017-183 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal considered the submission regarding territorial jurisdiction and referred to the territorial jurisdiction notification and Standing Order No. 01 of 2021 issued by the Hon'ble President, ITAT. This standing order stipulates that appeals arising from orders passed by the Ld. CIT(E), Jaipur, are exclusively cognizable by the Jodhpur Bench of the Tribunal. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appeal filed before the Jaipur Bench was not maintainable. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee before the Jaipur Bench, with liberty granted to the assessee to file an appropriate appeal before the Jodhpur Bench in the manner prescribed by law. No specific finding was made on the merits of the assessment order itself, as the appeal was dismissed on a procedural ground.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Dilip Wadhwani, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jaipur Bench, against an order dated 25.09.2025 passed by the Addl./Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Pune. This order arose from an assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The appeal was filed with a delay of 34 days. The assessee's counsel submitted that the appeal was filed before the incorrect bench (Jaipur) due to a misunderstanding of territorial jurisdiction, as the assessee's jurisdiction lies with ITO Ward 3(4), Jodhpur. The assessee requested the transfer of the appeal to the Jodhpur Bench.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed before the Jaipur Bench of the ITAT is maintainable, considering the territorial jurisdiction of the assessee lies with the Jodhpur Bench, and if not, what is the appropriate course of action? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning procedural rules and territorial jurisdiction). Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the appeal was filed before the Jaipur Bench inadvertently, whereas it should have been filed before the Jodhpur Bench due to the assessee's territorial jurisdiction lying with Jodhpur. The assessee requested the transfer of the appeal to the Jodhpur Bench. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contention from the revenue regarding the maintainability of the appeal before the Jaipur Bench or the territorial jurisdiction issue.

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, ‘SMC’ BENCH, JAIPUR

Before: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Tanuj Jain, Adv

PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal is filed by the assessee as against the appellate order dated 25.09.2025 passed by Addl./Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Pune, arising out of assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry has noted that there is delay of 34 days in filing the appeal.

At the outset, Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee through virtual hearing submitted that the appeal against the impugned order is filed before Jaipur Bench, whereas territorial juri iction of the assessee lies at Jodhpur with I

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 account Sign 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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →