ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1 1, CHENNAI vs. ALLAHABAD BANK (MERGED WITH INDIAN BANK), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1675/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 March 2026AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order was from Kolkata, and therefore, the appeals should have been filed before the Kolkata benches. Following a Supreme Court judgment, the appeals were disposed of as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The revenue filed two appeals against orders of the CIT(A) for assessment years 2017-18 & 2018-19. The assessee argued that the appeals were wrongly filed before the Chennai benches instead of the Kolkata benches, as the Assessing Officer was from Kolkata.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the correct jurisdiction for filing the appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI

Pronounced: 11.03.2026

& 1681/Chny/2024 :- 2 -: passed the order dated 28.12.2019 u/s 143(3) of the Act is the ACIT, Circle 6(1), Kolkata and the appeals lies only before the Kolkata Benches of Tribunal and not before Chennai Benches of Tribunal. The ld. AR for the assessee submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DCIT vs. MSPL Ltd reported in 150 taxmann.com 44, following its own ruling in the case of Pr. CIT vs. ABC Papers Limited reported in 141 taxmann.com 332/447 ITR 1 held that the Tribunal and the jurisdiction of the concerned High Court who depend on the Assessing Officer who passed the order.

3.

The ld. AR therefore, submits that since in the assessee’s case, the Assessing Officer who completed and passed the assessment orders dated 28.12.2019 & 30.04.2021 is ACIT, Circle 6(1), Kolkata and e- assessment whose jurisdictional assessing officer (JAO) is in Kolkata.

These two appeals lie only before the Kolkata Benches of Tribunal and not before Chennai Benches of Tribunal.

4.

Per contra, the ld. DR for the appellant/revenue did not controvert the legal position and the submissions of ld. AR for the assessee.

5.

Heard rival submissions and perused the orders of authorities below.

In the present appeals, therefore, challenges the orders of ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi which order passed by pursuant to the order u/s 143(3) dated 28.12.2019 passed by ACIT, Circle 6(1), Kolkata and National e- Assessment Centre, Delhi. Therefore, the present appeals are not & 1681/Chny/2024 :- 3 -: maintainable at Chennai Tribunal. Further, respectively following the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. ABC Papers Limited reported in 447 ITR 1 (supra), we disposed of these two appeals as withdrawn with a direction and liberty to the revenue/appellant to file proper appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order.

Liberty is accordingly granted to the revenue. 6. In the result, the captioned revenue appeals are disposed of as withdrawn in terms of above order.

Order pronounced on the 11th day of March, 2026 in Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →