SANDEEP BHURIA,RATLAM vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, NEW DELHI

At the outset, we find that the assessment in this case for the Asst Year 2010-11 was framed by the ld AO at Ratlam determining total income of Rs 1,67,35,717/- plus Agricultural income of Rs 1,90,580/-. The assessee is situated in State of Madhya Pradesh. The Assessing Officer who framed the assessment is situated in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld CIT(A) electronically. Page | 1 Thereafter, PAN of the assessee got migrated to New Delhi due to centralization of assessee’s case. Accordingly, the jurisdiction stood shifted to Central Circle -19, New Delhi for the assessee. Hence the ld CIT(A) New Delhi disposed of the appeal of the assessee. But as stated earlier, the AO of the assessee is in Madhya Pradesh. Hence in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ABC Papers Ltd reported in 447 ITR 1 (SC) wherein it settled the law that it is situs of the Assessing Officer which forms the clinching factor for exercising the appellate jurisdiction. Hence the Delhi Tribunal does not have power to adjudicate this appeal as the Assessing Officer was located in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Hence we dismiss the appeal of the assessee as not maintainable with liberty given to the assessee to approach the appropriate Bench by filing a fresh appeal together with a delay condonation petition.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable.