Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before ITAT, Chennai, but later realized that the Assessing Officer was located in Haridwar, Uttarakhand, making Chennai ITAT lack jurisdiction. The assessee had inadvertently provided incorrect jurisdictional details while filing the appeal. The assessee subsequently filed a fresh appeal before the correct ITAT, Dehradun.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the error in jurisdiction and recalled its ex-parte order. The Miscellaneous Application was allowed, and the appeal filed before the Chennai ITAT was treated as infructuous and dismissed.
Key Issues
Whether the ITAT, Chennai had the correct jurisdiction to hear the appeal when the AO was located in a different jurisdiction, and whether the appeal filed with incorrect jurisdictional details could be dismissed as infructuous.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI JAGADISH
आदेश / O R D E R PER JAGADISH, A.M :
MA No.73/Chny/2025: By way of this Miscellaneous Application (M.A.), the assessee seeks recall of the ex-parte order of the Tribunal dated 19.03.2025 in , wherein the appeal of the assessee was disposed of by setting aside the order of the Ld. Addl. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the issue after receipt of the decision of the Ld. CIT(E) on condonation of delay.
The Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R.) for the assessee in the written submission has submitted that the A.O in the present case is located at Haridwar District, Uttarakhand, and therefore, jurisdiction lies with the Hon’ble ITAT, Dehradun Bench. It was further submitted that the assessee, upon realizing the mistake, has already e-filed an appeal before ITAT, Dehradun vide Acknowledgement No. 1800006063 dated 23.12.2024. Accordingly, it was prayed that the order of the Tribunal dated 19.03.2025 may be recalled and the appeal be dismissed as withdrawn.
The Ld. Departmental Representative (D.R.) did not raise any objection to the submissions made by the assessee.
We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The present appeal against the order of Addl./JCIT(A)-2, Chennai, was filed before ITAT, Chennai Bench dated 30.10.2024, and the same was disposed of ex-parte by order dated 19.03.2025. It is now brought to our notice that the jurisdictional Assessing Officer is located in Haridwar District, Uttarakhand, and therefore, ITAT, Chennai does not have jurisdiction over the matter.
The assessee has already filed an appeal before ITAT, Dehradun with correct jurisdictional particulars. Considering the submissions, we are satisfied that the order of this Tribunal dated 19.03.2025 requires to be recalled and accordingly, the said order is recalled and re-fixed for the dismissal as withdrawn. In view of this, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is allowed.
The Ld. A.R. has submitted that incorrect jurisdictional details were inadvertently mentioned in Form No. 36 while e-filing the appeal before ITAT, Chennai, as “District: Chennai, State: Tamil Nadu” instead of “District: Haridwar, State: Uttarakhand.” On realizing the mistake, the assessee has already filed a fresh appeal before ITAT, Dehradun vide Acknowledgement No. 1800006063 dated 23.12.2024 with correct particulars of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer.
Since, the appeal before ITAT, Dehradun is already pending and ITAT, Chennai does not have jurisdiction over the matter, the present appeal filed before ITAT, Chennai is treated as infructuous and dismissed accordingly.
In the result, the MA filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructous.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 22nd day of August, 2025 at Chennai.