DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-06, THIRD FLOOR vs. SICPA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , MERCANTILE HOUSE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 398/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 November 2024AY 2006-07Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Delhi Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in ABC Papers Ltd, held that the situs of the Assessing Officer determines the appellate jurisdiction. Since the impugned assessment order was passed by an AO situated in Kolkata, the Delhi Tribunal lacked the power to adjudicate the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty for the revenue to approach the appropriate Bench in Kolkata.

What were the facts?

The revenue filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A)-24, New Delhi, which granted partial relief to the assessee regarding a re-assessment for AY 2006-07. The re-assessment order was initially passed by the DCIT, Circle-8, Kolkata. This appeal was filed by the revenue before the Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain an appeal when the Assessing Officer who passed the impugned order is situated in Kolkata.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 148,Section 147,Section 251,Section 154,Section 80IC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Shri Akash Singhal, FCA
For Respondent: Shri Mritunjay Prasad Dwivedi, Sr. DR
Hearing: 24/10/2024Pronounced: 04/11/2024

O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in AY 2006-07, arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’, in short] in Appeal No. CIT(A), Kolkata-17/10401/2017-18 dated 28.11.2023 against the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 07.03.2014 by the Assessing Officer, ACIT, Circle-8, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’).

2.

At the outset, we find that the assessment in this case for the Asst Year 2006-07 was framed by the DCIT, Circle -8, Kolkata (ld AO) u/s 143(3) of the Act on 29.12.2009 determining total income of the assessee at Rs 8,55,94,450/-. The Assessing Officer who framed the assessment is situated in the State of West Bengal. The assessee is situated in Delhi. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld CIT(A)-VIII, Kolkata which was disposed by him vide order dated 12.1.2012 by allowing the appeal of the assessee in part. The assessee preferred

3.

Later a notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 1.3.2013 was issued by DCIT, Circle -8, Kolkata for the Asst Year 2006-07. The re-assessment was completed by DCIT, Circle -8, Kolkata u/s 147/251/154/143(3) of the Act dated 7.3.2014 determining total income of the assessee at Rs 15,83,76,330/-. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld CIT(A)-24, New Delhi which was disposed by him vide order dated 28.11.2023 by allowing the appeal of the assessee in part and granting substantial relief to the assessee on the claim of deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us.

4.

Since the impugned assessment order is passed by the Assessing Officer situated at Kolkata, the present appeal of the revenue before Delhi Tribunal is not maintainable 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 West Bengal. Hence we dismiss the appeal of the revenue as not maintainable with liberty given to the revenue to approach the appropriate Bench by filing a fresh appeal together with a delay condonation petition.

5.

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

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →