Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an authorized dealer of Airtel, filed a revised return for AY 2017-18. The AO made additions of Rs. 3,43,500/- for unexplained cash deposit during demonetisation and Rs. 3,14,760/- for business income. The CIT(A) deleted the business income addition but confirmed the unexplained cash deposit, leading the assessee to appeal to the ITAT.
Held
The Cochin Bench of the ITAT determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Citing the situs of the Assessing Officer in Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh, and relying on ITAT Rules and Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal concluded the appeal did not lie before the Cochin Bench. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on the principle of Coram Non Judice.
Key Issues
The primary issue was the territorial jurisdiction of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, to adjudicate an appeal arising from an assessment order passed by an Assessing Officer located outside its territorial jurisdiction.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM
O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] dated 28.05.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual engaged in the business of authorised dealer of Airtel Network. The return of income for AY 2017-18 was filed on 05.08.2017 and the same was revised on 08.08.2019 disclosing income of Rs. 2,80,710/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by Ramesh Potnuru the Income Tax Officer,Ward-1, Srikakulam (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 23.12.2019 at a total income of Rs. 9,38,970/- . While doing so, the AO made addition or unexplained money of Rs,3,43,500/- for failure of the appellant to explain the source of cash deposit of Rs. 3,43,500/- during demonetisation period. The AO also made addition of Rs. 3,14,760/- under the head ‘business income’ by estimating the total income at 5% of the gross receipts as against the income shown by the assessee at Rs. 3,14.760/-.
Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order deleted the addition made under the head business income. He, however, confirmed the addition of Rs. 3.43,500/- made as unexplained cash deposit.
2. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal.
At the outset I 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 Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh. 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 Ramesh Potnuru (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. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is dismissed invoking the principle of Coram Non Judice.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 29th January, 2025. 7.