Loading judgment…
Facts
The revenue filed an appeal against an NFAC order for AY 2008-09, challenging the CIT(A)'s decision to entertain an additional ground (citing Goetze India case) and delete a substantial addition of Rs. 134,22,08,000/- made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act on account of share premium. The Tribunal, however, first addressed the jurisdictional aspect of the appeal.
Held
The Tribunal found that the Delhi Bench lacked jurisdiction because the Assessing Officer was located in Mumbai. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, with the revenue granted the opportunity to refile the appeal before the appropriate Mumbai Bench.
Key Issues
The primary issue decided by the Tribunal was the jurisdictional competence of the Delhi Bench to hear the appeal. Substantive issues raised by the revenue related to the CIT(A)'s power to entertain additional grounds and the deletion of a share premium addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
Sections Cited
Section 68 of the Income Tax Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI
Before: SH. SAKTIJIT DEY & SH. N. K. BILLAIYA
PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM:
This appeal by the revenue is preferred against the order dated 24.08.2023 by NFAC, Delhi pertaining to A.Y. 2008-09.
The grievance of the revenue read as under :- 1. That whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in entertaining the additional ground raise by the assessee during the appellate proceedings in view of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M's Goetze (India) Ltd. Ve CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC).
2. That whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 134,22,08,000/- on account of share premium in excess of intrinsic value of the shares u/s 68 of the Act.
3. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend. vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid ground (s) of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.
On perusal of the appeal folder we find that the jurisdiction lies with Mumbai Bench as the AO is at Mumbai. Since the appeal has been filed in the wrong jurisdiction the same is dismissed. However, the revenue is allowed the opportunity to file the appeal at the appropriate jurisdiction.
Decision announced in the open court on 31.01.2024.