Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue filed an appeal and the assessee filed cross-objections for AY 1994-97 against a CIT(A) order, stemming from an assessment framed under Section 144 of the Income-tax Act. The core issue arose because the assessment was framed in Lucknow and the CIT(A) order passed in Kanpur, but the case was transferred to the ITAT Delhi benches.
Held
The ITAT Delhi benches ruled that they lacked territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the appeal and cross-objections. The tribunal referred to its Standing Order and a Supreme Court decision, emphasizing that jurisdiction is determined by the situs of the Assessing Officer who framed the assessment, which was Lucknow.
Key Issues
Whether ITAT Delhi benches possess territorial jurisdiction over a case where the original assessment was framed in Lucknow and the first appellate order was passed in Kanpur.
Sections Cited
Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961
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
1994-97, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- I, [in short, the “CIT(A)”] Kanpur’s order dated 09.09.2005 in case no. CIT(A)-I/9/CC-III/Lko/97-98/144, 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 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-III, Lucknow had framed the impugned assessment in assesee’s case on 27.03.1997 followed by the CIT(A)-1 having passed his lower appellate order at Kanpur.
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 2 | P a g e 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 that their lordships’ detailed analysis would apply mutatis mutandis herein as well.