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

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.

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).

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.

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.