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

ITA 18/JPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 September 2026AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the assessee before the Jaipur Bench is not maintainable. This decision was based on the territorial jurisdiction notification and Standing Order No. 01 of 2021 issued by the Hon’ble President, ITAT, which 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 appeal filed before the Jaipur Bench was dismissed. However, the assessee was granted liberty to file an appropriate appeal before the Jodhpur Bench in the manner known to law. No other issues were decided.

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 assessee's PAN is AAKPW4182F. The appeal was filed with a delay of 34 days. The assessee's counsel submitted that the appeal was filed before the wrong bench (Jaipur) as the territorial jurisdiction for the assessee lies with the Jodhpur Bench of the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the assessee before the Jaipur Bench of the ITAT is maintainable, considering the territorial jurisdiction of the assessee lies with the Jodhpur Bench, as per the relevant territorial jurisdiction notification and Standing Order No. 01 of 2021 issued by the Hon’ble President, ITAT. Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the appeal was filed inadvertently before the Jaipur Bench instead of the Jodhpur Bench, which has the correct territorial jurisdiction. 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.

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.

3.

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 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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →