ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-25(1), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. VEDANTA LIMITED, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3247/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 January 2026AY 2011-12Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman (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 Standing Order under Income-Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, defines territorial jurisdiction based on the 'situs' of the Assessing Officer. As of 01.10.1997, the situs of the assessee's Assessing Officer was not covered under Delhi benches' jurisdiction. The Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court decision in PCIT Vs. ABC Paper Ltd.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2011-12. During the hearing, it was noted that the 'situs' of the Assessing Officer was at Panaji, not Delhi. The Revenue argued that the Delhi benches of the Tribunal had jurisdiction.

What were the issues?

Whether the Delhi benches of the ITAT have territorial jurisdiction to hear the appeal when the Assessing Officer's situs is not within Delhi's jurisdiction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

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, DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Respondent: Ms. Amish S. Gupt, CIT-DR
Hearing: 08.01.2026Pronounced: 08.01.2026

ORDER

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

1.

This Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024–25/1074812498(1) dated 21.03.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

It emerges during the course of hearing that “situs” of the assessee’s Assessing Officer framing regular assessment in issue is at Panaji.

4.

Faced with this situation, learned CIT-DR submits that Delhi benches of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal very well have jurisdiction to entertain the Revenue’s instant appeal; and more particularly, in light of the fact that the same is directed against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s lower appellate order. We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant arguments in light of this tribunal’s STANDING ORDER UNDER INCOME-TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 defining territorial jurisdiction of various benches of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal; as on 01.10.1997 wherein “situs” of the assessee’s Assessing Officer is not covered under Delhi benches jurisdiction. We wish to make it clear here that not only para 4 of the said STANDING ORDER adopts “situs” of the location of the “office of the Assessing Officer” as the decisive factor in such an instance. We further quote PCIT Vs. ABC Paper Ltd. (2022) 447 ITR 1 (SC) deciding the very issue against the assessee.

5.

We accordingly dismiss the Revenue’s instant appeal for want of territorial jurisdiction of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi with liberty to be instituted afresh before the appropriate benches. It is made clear that delay in such a situation thereof; if any, as on date, shall stand condoned. Ordered accordingly.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →