CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED ,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2391/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 April 2025AY 2005-06Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the error in filing and the contention that the jurisdictional bench is in Mumbai. Consequently, the Tribunal granted the assessee's request.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal with the wrong jurisdictional bench online, causing it to be listed before the Pune bench instead of the Mumbai bench. The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal to refile it before the correct bench.

What were the issues?

Correct identification of the jurisdictional bench for filing an appeal with the ITAT.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. Pathak
For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Hearing: 20.02.2025Pronounced: 30.04.2025

Assessment Year : 2005-06 Capgemini Technology Vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Pune. Services India Limited (Successor to Capgemini Consulting India Private Limited), Bloc 3, A Wing, 4th Floor, Capgemin Knowledge Park, Yosemite, Thane Belapur Road, Airoli, Navi Mumbai- 400708. PAN : AAACE2443A Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Revenue by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 20.02.2025 Date of pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश / ORDER

PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.01.2024 passed by Ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Delhi for the assessment year 2005-06.

2.

When the case was called for hearing, Ld. counsel for the assessee requested for disposing off the assessee’s appeal as “returned” with liberty to file the same afresh before the Jurisdictional Benches of the Tribunal i.e. before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Benches, Mumbai. It was contended that the jurisdiction of the assessee lies with the ACIT, Circle- 10(2), Mumbai. It was further submitted that while filing the appeal online, inadvertently the name of the respondent was selected as the ACIT, Circle-1(1), Pune. On account of this error, the said appeal has been automatically tagged to the ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune and accordingly listed before the Bench. It was therefore requested by Ld. Counsel of the assessee to return the appeal with liberty to file a fresh appeal before the Jurisdictional Bench of the Tribunal.

3.

Ld. DR raised no objection to the request of Ld. Counsel of the assessee.

4.

We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and find that the “situs” of the assessee lies with the ACIT, Circle- 10(2), Mumbai. Therefore, we find force in the argument of Ld. Counsel of the assessee and allow the request made by the assessee in this regard. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal as returned with liberty to file the same afresh before Jurisdictional Bench of the Tribunal as per law. We further make it clear that we have not adjudicated upon any of the issues raised in the instant appeal in law as well as on merits, whatsoever. Ordered accordingly.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →