DDIT(INT.TAX.)1(1), MUMBAI vs. THE BANK OF TOKYO- MITSUBISHI LTD, MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the territorial jurisdiction of its benches is determined by the location of the Assessing Officer who framed the assessment. Therefore, the Delhi benches lacked the jurisdiction to hear these appeals.
What were the facts?
The assessee, The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi Ltd., filed appeals before the ITAT Delhi benches for assessment years 1997-98 and 1999-2000. The Assessing Officer's orders for these years were passed by authorities located in Kolkata.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the territorial jurisdiction of the ITAT Delhi benches to hear appeals where the original assessment was made by an Assessing Officer in Kolkata. The Tribunal also considered the impact of Supreme Court decisions on determining jurisdiction based on the situs of the Assessing Officer.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide 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.
- PCIT v. ABC Papers Ltd.181 citing150 Taxmann.com 41 · 2022 · SC · Read judgment
- MSPL Ltd. v. PCIT8 citing436 ITR 199 · 2021
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN
ORDER
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
The instant batch of three cases pertains to the single assessee herein, namely, The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi Ltd. This assessee has filed its former appeal for AY: 1997-98 against Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Kolkata’s order dated 14.12.2000 passed in case no.49/A-II/2000- 01. The assessee’s and Revenue’s cross-appeals and 7324/Mum/2002 for AY: 1999-2000 are directed against the CIT(A), Kolkata’s order dated 10.10.2002 passed in case no. 102/CIT(A)-XI, Intl. Taxation. Relevant proceedings in both these assessment years are under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties at length on the limited issue of territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi benches of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Case files perused.
3. It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that the “situs” of the learned Assessing Authority in both these cases happens to be at Kolkata, since the JCIT, Special Range-3, Kolkata had framed his assessment on 21st March, 2000 in AY 1997-98 and ADIT (International Taxation), Kolkata has passed his assessment 2 | P a g e ; 2558/Kol/2002 & 7324/Mum/2002 order on 23.03.2002 in latter assessment year 1999-2000, respectively.
We duly point out this clinching aspect to both the parties, who vehemently submit that given the fact that these appeals have been transferred to ITAT, Delhi, the same ought to be decided on merits. 5. That being the clinching factual position emerging from the case files, we note the tribunal in M/s. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. Vs. DCIT, dated 26.11.2024 has already rejected both the parties’ identical stand as follows: “2. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.
We first of all advert to the assessee’s and Revenue’s quantum cross appeals i.e. & 1151/Del/2014 for former assessment year 2005-06 and ITA No. 2455 & 3329/Del/2014 for latter assessee year 2006-07. It emerges with the able assistance coming from both the parties that it was learned DCIT, Circle-8, Kolkata who had framed these twin amount assessments dated 18.07.2008 and 26.12.2008 assessment year-wise; respectively.
4. It is also noticed that there arises the first and fundamental issue of this tribunal’s Delhi benches’ jurisdiction itself since the learned Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8, Kolkata had framed the impugned assessments in assesee’s case on 18.07.2008 followed by the CIT(A)-1 having passed his lower appellate order at New Delhi.
Faced with this situation, both the learned parties raised their vehement submissions that Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Benches could very well decide the instant cases once they have transferred from Kolkata benches.
6. We find no merit in both the parties’ foregoing unanimous stand in light of the clinching fact that the assessment herein had 3 | P a g e ; 2558/Kol/2002 & 7324/Mum/2002 been framed at Kolkata (supra). We further wish to refer to this Tribunal STANDING ORDER UNDER INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963 settling the instant issue of territorial jurisdiction of various Benches as per “location of the office of the Assessing Officer” in para 4 thereof. We also deem it appropriate to refer to hon’ble apex court’s recent landmark decision in PCIT Vs. ABC Papers Ltd. (2022) 447 ITR 1 (SC), settling the issue that it is only the “situs” of the Assessing Officer framing assessment which forms the decisive factor for the purpose of determining territorial jurisdiction of hon’ble high court.
7. Needless to mention, we wish to clarify here that this Tribunal’s forgoing STANDING ORDER applicable with effect from 1st November, 1997 has verbatim adopted the “situs” of the Assessing Officer framing assessment and, therefore, we conclude that their lordships’ detailed analysis would apply mutatis mutandis herein as well.
We accordingly decline both the Revenue’s instant appeal as well as assessee’s cross objection(s) thereby concluding that ITAT, Delhi Benches do not have territorial jurisdiction to decide the same, subject to a rider that the department as well as the assessee shall indeed be at liberty to institute their respective appeals, as the case may be, before the appropriate Benches at Kolkata and delay caused therein involving the entire intervening period shall stand condoned. These twin cross appeals are dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction of Delhi Benches of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
9. We now left with the assessee’s remaining twin cross appeals i.e. for assessment year 2005-06 and for assessment year 2006-07 which also deserves to follow the aforesaid decision (supari) in the light of foregoing quantum developments in very terms.
To sum up, these assessee’s two appeals and Revenue’s four quantum cross appeals are dismissed in above terms. Copy of this common order be placed in the respective files.”
We further made it clear to both the parties that the instant issue of this tribunal’s territorial jurisdiction has recently been dealt with by their lordships in PCIT v. MSPL Ltd. [22023] 150 taxmann.com 41 (SC) as well. And that the said assessee had filed its corresponding appeal before the Bangalore benches of tribunal which was transferred to Mumbai benches. It is in this factual 4 | P a g e ; 2558/Kol/2002 & 7324/Mum/2002 backdrop that the hon’ble Mumbai High Court in MSPL Limited v. PCIT (2021) 436 ITR 199 had allowed the assessee’s case which stands upheld in the hon’ble apex court.
This being the settled legal proposition on the instant issue of territorial jurisdiction of various benches of the tribunal, we hereby dismiss these assessee’s and Revenue’s appeals for want of territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi benches of the tribunal with a liberty to file fresh cases before appropriate benches as per law. Delay caused; as on date, shall be deemed to have been condoned. Ordered Accordingly.
8. All other pleadings on merits herein stand rendered academic at this stage.
To sum up, both the assessee’s appeals and 2558/Kol/2002 and Revenue’s cross-appeal are dismissed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open court on 19th March, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 19th March, 2025. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 5 | P a g e ; 2558/Kol/2002 & 7324/Mum/2002
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
