Loading judgment…
Facts
A batch of six appeals involving Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. for Assessment Years 2005-06 and 2006-07 were filed before the ITAT Delhi Benches. The assessments were originally framed by the DCIT, Circle-8, Kolkata, and the first appellate orders were passed by the CIT(A) in New Delhi. Both parties initially submitted that the Delhi Benches could decide the cases as they were transferred from Kolkata.
Held
The ITAT Delhi Benches held that they lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear the appeals. Relying on the ITAT Standing Order (1963) and the Supreme Court decision in PCIT vs. ABC Papers Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that the "situs of the Assessing Officer" (Kolkata in this case) determines jurisdiction. The appeals were dismissed, with liberty granted to both parties to file fresh appeals before the appropriate Benches in Kolkata, with condonation of delay.
Key Issues
Whether the ITAT Delhi Benches have territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate appeals when the original assessment orders were framed by an Assessing Officer located in Kolkata.
Sections Cited
143(3), 142(2A), 271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI M. BALAGANESH
Sl. Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Order Appealed against No. 1. 1071/Del/2014 Sahara DCIT, Central CIT(A)-I, New Delhi’s order for AY: 2005-06 India Circle-6, dated 23.12.2013 passed in Commercial New Delhi case no. 715/09-10 Corporation involving proceedings under Ltd. Section 143(3)/142(2A) of the Act. 2. 2455/Del/2014 Sahara DCIT, Central CIT(A)-I, New Delhi’s order for AY: 2006-07 India Circle-6, dated 05.03.2014 passed in Commercial New Delhi case no. 712/09-10 Corporation involving proceedings under Ltd. Section 143(3) of the Act. 3. 1151/Del/2014 DCIT, Sahara India CIT(A)-I, New Delhi’s order for AY: 2005-06 Central Commercial dated 23.12.2023 passed in Circle-6, Corporation case no. 715/09-10 New Delhi Ltd. involving proceedings under Section 143(3)/142(2A) of the Act. 4. 1161/Del/2016 ACIT, Sahara India CIT(A)-23, New Delhi’s order for AY:2005-06 Central Commercial dated 7.12.2015 passed in Circle-1, Corporation case no. 58/15-16 involving New Delhi Ltd. proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2 | P a g e & 2455/Del/2014; 1151/Del/2014; 1161/Del/2016; 225/Del/2017 & 3329/Del/2014
5. 225/Del/2017 ACIT, Sahara India CIT(A)-23, New Delhi’s order for AY: 2006-07 Central Commercial dated 04.11.2016 passed in Circle-1, Corporation case no. 50/16-17 involving New Delhi Ltd. proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. 3329/Del/2014 DCIT, Sahara India CIT(A)-1, New Delhi’s order for AY: 2006-07 Central Commercial dated 05.03.2014 passed in Circle-6, Corporation case no. 712/09-10 New Delhi Ltd. involving proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Act.
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 & 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.
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.
3 | P a g e & 2455/Del/2014; 1151/Del/2014; 1161/Del/2016; 225/Del/2017 & 3329/Del/2014
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.
We find no merit in both the parties’ foregoing unanimous stand in light of the clinching fact that the assessment herein had 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.
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
4 | P a g e & 2455/Del/2014; 1151/Del/2014; 1161/Del/2016; 225/Del/2017 & 3329/Del/2014 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.
We now left with the assessee’s remaining twin cross appeals i.e. for assessment year 2005-06 and 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.
5 | P a g e & 2455/Del/2014; 1151/Del/2014; 1161/Del/2016; 225/Del/2017 & 3329/Del/2014