Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue preferred two appeals against orders of the CIT(A) for Assessment Years 2016-2017 and 2017-2018. The Assessee contended that the appeals were incorrectly filed before the Mumbai Benches as the assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer in Mangalore.
Held
The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of ABC Papers Ltd., held that appeals must be filed before the Tribunal bench having jurisdiction over the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order. Therefore, the appeals filed before the Mumbai Benches were not maintainable.
Key Issues
Jurisdiction of the Tribunal benches for filing appeals based on the location of the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order.
Sections Cited
Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 127 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, F BENCH, MUMBAI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "F" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-3(4), 29th Floor, Center-1, World Trade Center, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 …………. Appellant Union Bank of India Vs (Successor of Corporation Bank) Central Accounts Dept. 6th Floor, Union Bank Bhavan 239, Vidhan bhavan Marg Nariman Point Mumbai – 400021 …………. Respondent [PAN: AAACU0564G] Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri Ananthan S Ms. Laitha Rameshwaran For the Respondent/Department : Shri Vivek Perampurna Date Conclusion of hearing : 08.10.2024 Pronouncement of order : 18.12.2024 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. These are two appeals preferred by the Revenue directed against two separate order, dated 30/06/2022, and 29/06/2022, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] for the Assessment Year 2016-2017 and 2017-2018, respectively.
At the outset, Ld. Authorised Representative for the Assessee filed submitted that the assessment order was passed by the Assessing ITA No. 2174 & 2175/MUM/2022 Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Officer, Mangalore falling. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ABC Papers Ltd. [2022] 447 ITR 1 (SC), the appeal should have been filed by the Revenue before the Bangalore Benches of the Tribunal since the seat of the Assessing Officer passing the assessment order determined the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Therefore, both the appeals were incorrectly filed by the Revenue before the Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal. Reliance in this regard was also placed on the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2007-2008 [ITA No. 3090/Mum/2022, dated 21/11/2023,].
3. The Learned Departmental Representative supported the filing of appeal before the Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal.
We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ABC Papers Ltd. (supra) held that appeal against every decision of the ITAT shall lie only before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order is situated, even if the case or the cases of assessee are transferred invoking power u/s 127 of the Act, the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer has passed the order shall continue to exercise jurisdiction of the appeal and this principle is applicable even if the transfer is u/s 127 of the Act for same assessment year(s). While passing order, dated 21/11/2023, in holding the appeal of the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2007- 2008 as not maintainable, the Tribunal had applied same principle in relation to filing of appeal before the Tribunal. In the appeals before us pertain to the Assessment Years 2016-2017 and 2017- 2018. For both the aforesaid assessment years, the assessment order was passed by the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 2(1), Mangalore. Hence the jurisdiction to entertain both the appeals does not lie with the Mumbai Benches Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2017-18 of the Tribunal.
In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the appeals of the Revenue are not maintainable in present form having been filed before the Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal and are, therefore, dismissed as being not maintainable with the liberty to the Revenue file appeal before concerned Bench of the Tribunal having jurisdiction over the Assessing Officer at Mangalore, if so advised, along with application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal bringing on record facts related to filing and disposal of the present appeals so that the period commencing from the date of filing appeal(s) till the date of disposal be taken into consideration by the concerned bench of the Tribunal.
In terms of paragraph 5 above, appeal preferred by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 are dismissed for statistical purposes as not maintainable.