INCOME TAX OFFICER, MOHALI vs. GURMAIL SINGH, MOHALI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 681/CHANDI/2023Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 July 2025AY 2010-11Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable before the Chandigarh Bench due to territorial jurisdiction lying with the Amritsar Bench. Furthermore, as the quantum additions were deleted, the penalties would not survive.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed two appeals against the orders of the CIT(Appeals) for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. These appeals originated from penalty orders passed by the DCIT/ACIT.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals are maintainable before the Chandigarh Bench when the territorial jurisdiction lies with the Amritsar Bench and whether penalties survive if the original additions are deleted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH

Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY

For Appellant: Shri Manpreet Singh Kanda & Shri Amit Prasad, Advocates
For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Hearing: 03.06.2025Pronounced: 01.07.2025

The present two appeals are directed by the Revenue against the order of ld. CIT (Appeals) dated 22.09.2023 passed for assessment year 2010-11 and 2011-12.

2.

A perusal of the record would emerge out that these appeals emanate from penalty orders dated 17.03.2020 passed by Shri Arvind Kumar Bansal, DCIT/ACIT, Circle-2 Bathinda.

& 682/CHD/2023 A.Y.2010-11 & 2011-12 2 3. The territorial jurisdiction over Bathinda lies with ITAT Amritsar Bench, therefore, these appeals ought to have been filed by the Department before the ITAT Amritsar. They are not maintainable in the present Forum as per the latest decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 18.08.2022 in the case of ‘Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh Vs M/s ABC Papers Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 4252 of 2022 arising out of SLP(C) No. 23352 of 2019. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that quantum additions stand deleted, therefore, otherwise also, these penalties will not survive.

4.

The ld. DR, on the other hand, was unable to controvert this aspect.

5.

We have duly considered the rival contentions. The question of entertaining the appeal on merit would only arise when this Bench has jurisdiction to adjudicate them on merit. Once the Bench lacks jurisdiction, then it cannot adjudicate the issues on merit by taking cognizance of the fact that quantum additions have been deleted and therefore, the very foundation to visit the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) does not survive. We are of the view that these appeals are to be dismissed threshold with an opportunity to the Revenue to file fresh & 682/CHD/2023 A.Y.2010-11 & 2011-12 3 appeals before an appropriate Bench of the Tribunal having territorial jurisdiction over the AO who has passed the impugned orders. Since, according to the ld. counsel for the assessee, quantum additions stand deleted, therefore, we will appreciate that if the Competent Authority approving the filing of appeals would look into this aspect and then decide whether appeals are to be filed before Appropriate Bench of the ITAT or not, but needless to say, our observations will not impair or injure the case of the Revenue for filing appeals before an appropriate Forum, nor our observations will cause any prejudice to the defence/explanation of the assessee on merit.

6.

In the result, both appeals are dismissed for statistical purpose being not maintainable.

Order pronounced on 01.07.2025.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →