Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue filed an appeal (ITA No.566/Lkw/2002) and the assessee filed cross-objections (CO No. 87/Lkw/2005) for assessment year 1997-98 against a CIT(A) order from Lucknow. The assessment under section 144 was originally framed by the Dy. CIT, Central Circle-I, Lucknow, and the lower appellate order was also passed in Lucknow, leading to a question about the Delhi Tribunal's territorial jurisdiction.
Held
The Tribunal held that, based on its Standing Order (effective 1st November 1997) and the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT Vs. ABC Papers Ltd., the "situs" of the Assessing Officer determines jurisdiction. Since the assessment was framed in Lucknow, the ITAT Delhi Benches lacked territorial jurisdiction. Consequently, both the appeal and cross-objections were dismissed, with liberty granted to the parties to file them before the appropriate Lucknow Benches, and any delay caused would be condoned.
Key Issues
Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Benches, had territorial jurisdiction to decide an appeal and cross-objections where the assessment and first appellate orders were framed and passed in Lucknow.
Sections Cited
section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI M. BALAGANESH
Assessment Year: 1997-98 M/s. Sahara India Financial Vs. DCIT, Corporation, Central Circle-1, Kapoorthala Complex, Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow. PAN : (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Sh. Arpit Goel, CA Department by Mr. Javed Akhtar, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 14.11.2024 Date of pronouncement 20.11.2024 ORDER
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
This Revenue’s appeal with assessee’s cross objections CO No. 87/Lkw/2005 for assessment year 1997-98, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- III, [in short, the “CIT(A)”] Lucknow’s order dated 11.03.2002 in case no. 32/CC-I/Lko/99-2000, involving proceedings under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.
It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that there arises the first and fundamental issue of this tribunal’s Delhi benches jurisdiction itself since the learned Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-I, Lucknow had framed the impugned assessment in assesee’s case on 07.07.2000 followed by the CIT(A)- 1 having passed his lower appellate order at Lucknow.
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 Lucknow 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 Lucknow (supra). We further wish to refer to this Tribunal STANDING ORDER UNDER INCOME TAX APPELLATE
2 | P a g e 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 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 or cross objections, as the case may be, before the appropriate