BHARAT T CHHEDA,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER , BKC KAUTILYA BHAVAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6325/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 December 20253 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the Delhi Benches lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as jurisdiction is determined by the location of the Assessing Officer. The assessee was granted liberty to file a fresh appeal before the appropriate bench.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal with the ITAT Delhi Benches, but the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction was in Mumbai. The assessee did not appear for the hearing, and the appeal was proceeded ex-parte.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the territorial jurisdiction of the ITAT Delhi Benches to hear an appeal when the assessee's regular assessment jurisdiction lies in Mumbai.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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: ‘A’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

Hearing: 26.12.2025Pronounced: 26.12.2025

ORDER

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2018-19, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1078922438(1), dated 25.07.2025 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

3.

Delay of 6 days in filing of the assessee’s instant appeal is condoned in larger interest of justice and in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

4.

Coming to the assessee’s transfer application herein, 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 assessee’s regular assessment jurisdiction is at Mumbai.

5.

Faced with this situation, we hereby quote this Tribunal’s 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.

6.

Needless to mention, we wish to clarify here that this Tribunal’s forgoing STANDING ORDER applicable with effect from 2 | P a g e 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.

7.

We accordingly decline the assessee’s transfer application thereby concluding that ITAT, Delhi Benches do not have territorial jurisdiction to decide the same, subject to a rider that he shall indeed be at liberty to institute a fresh appeal, if so advised, before the appropriate Benches and delay caused therein involving the entire intervening period, shall stand condoned.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →