DCIT, CIRCLE -13(1), DELHI, C.R. BUILDING, DELHI vs. LOOP TELECOM AND TRADING LIMITED, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2897/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 January 2024AY 2008-09Bench: SH. SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member)2 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 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.

What were the 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.

What were the 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.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

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 ‘E’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. SAKTIJIT DEY & SH. N. K. BILLAIYA

Hearing: 31/01/2024Pronounced: 31/01/2024

PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM:

1.

This appeal by the revenue is preferred against the order dated 24.08.2023 by NFAC, Delhi pertaining to A.Y. 2008-09.

2.

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.

3.

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.

4.

Decision announced in the open court on 31.01.2024.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →