PARESH DAYASHANKAR MADEKA ,C/O ROLEX RINGS PVT. LTD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RAJKOT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 424/COCH/2024Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 March 2025AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)3 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Cochin Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the appeal as the assessment order was passed by an Assessing Officer situated in Rajkot, Rajasthan. Citing Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal affirmed that its jurisdiction is determined by the AO's location, thus dismissing the appeal as Coram Non Judice.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Paresh Dayashankar Madeka, an individual deriving income from salary and interest, filed an appeal against additions made by the AO for accommodation loan and unexplained expenditure totaling Rs. 18,95,005/- for AY 2011-12. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's action, leading to the present appeal before the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, had the jurisdiction to hear an appeal when the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order was located in Rajkot, Rajasthan.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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, COCHIN BENCH

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JM

For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 05.02.2025Pronounced: 11.03.2025

O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)], dated 01.04.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual deriving income from salary and interest. The return of income for AY 2010-11 was filed on 01.02.2012. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(3), Rajkot (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated Paresh Dayashankar Madeka 19.12.2017 at a total income of Rs. 23,75,050/-. While doing so, the AO made additions of Rs. 18,67,000/- on account of accommodation loan and Rs. 28,005/- as unexplained expenditure by way of commission.

3.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO.

4.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal.

5.

At the outset we find that this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the preset appeal. The appeal does not lie before the Cochin Bench, since the assessment order is passed by the AO situated at Rajkot, Rajasthan. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is determined by the situs of the AO as per notification No. F. 63 dated 24.04.2019 issued under the Standing Order under Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. It is also relevant to make a reference to the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT v. ABC Papers Ltd. [2022] 447 ITR 1 (SC) and PCIT v. MSPL Ltd. [2023] 454 ITR 280 (SC) wherein it was held that the jurisdiction of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is determined by the location of the Assessing Officer who pass the assessment order. Therefore, in the light of the above legal position, the appeal filed by the assessee does not lie before this Bench.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 11th March, 2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →