Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of NFAC, Delhi, which had dismissed the appeal on grounds of delay and upheld an addition of Rs. 38,38,750. The assessee claimed this amount was a retirement benefit exempt under Section 10. The assessee also contended that a revised return was not considered by the AO and that they were not given an opportunity to be heard on merits.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the assessee's PAN was based in Pune, Maharashtra, and the assessee's address in the return of income also indicated Pune. Despite this, the appeal was filed before the Jaipur Benches, which lacked territorial jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.
Key Issues
The primary issue was the territorial jurisdiction of the Jaipur Benches to hear the appeal, given the assessee's PAN and address were in Pune. A secondary issue was the merits of the appeal concerning the addition and the opportunity for a hearing on merits.
Sections Cited
250, 10, 119(2)(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCH “A”, JAIPUR
Before: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR
PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of NFAC, Delhi dated 05.12.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -
1. 1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC was justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay in filing an appeal. 2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC erred in upholding the addition of Rs.
38,38,750/-, being income received by the appellant as retirement benefit which is an exempt income u/s. 10 of the Income Tax Act. 1961. 3) The learned Assessing Officer has not taken into account the revised /corrected return of income filed u/s. 119(2) (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Ack. no. 472324380080519, filing date May 8, 2019). The original ITR was defective due to an inadvertent error. The appellant erroneously included the 'Income exempt under Section 10 of other allowances', under the head "Salary". 4) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC erred in not granting an opportunity of being heard on the basis of merits of the case. Hence, we seek another opportunity of being heard before CIT (A), NFAC on the basis of merits in the interest of natural justice. 5) Appellant craves leave to add, amend, withdraw or delete the grounds of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings in the interest of natural justice.”
2. In this matter it is brought to our notice by the Ld. DR., that the PAN of the assessee appellant is based at Maharashtra, i.e. with the Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(4), Pune. We have gone through the record available before us and it is observed that the submission of the Ld. DR. is correct as far as PAN of the assessee appellant is concerned.
The assessee herself has shown address of Pune in the return of income of filed vide intimation issued by the CPC, Bengaluru and Mumbai vide order of the ADDL./JCIT (A)-2, Noida. Still, the appeal is being filed before the Jaipur Benches of the Tribunal, which is against the territorial jurisdiction assigned to this bench.
In view of these facts, the registry is directed to transfer the matter to the appropriate bench at Pune for further action and appropriate hearing on the matter.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 5.
The Order is pronounced in the open court on the 8th day of May 2025.