BALRAJ SINGH MANDER,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE PANVEL. , MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1472/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 October 2024AY 2010-114 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 considered the submissions and perused the material on record. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) who passed the order dated 23.04.2021 was not within the jurisdiction of the Mumbai Bench. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appeal filed before the ITAT Mumbai Bench is not maintainable. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee with the liberty to file the same before the ITAT Pune Bench. The Tribunal directed that the file/documents be handed over to the assessee for presenting them before the ITAT, Pune Bench. The issue regarding the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was not decided on merits due to the jurisdictional issue.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Balraj Singh Mander, filed his Income Tax Return (ITR) for Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11 on November 9, 2010, declaring an income of Rs. 45,85,563/-. The case was later reopened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after issuing a notice under Section 148. An assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 was completed on February 23, 2015, assessing the income at Rs. 4,30,86,460/- by adding Rs. 3,85,00,895/- on account of bogus purchases. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 were initiated, and a penalty of Rs. 49,16,937/- was imposed on March 30, 2022. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], who dismissed the appeal. The assessee then filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai Bench.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed before the ITAT Mumbai Bench is maintainable, considering the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO) who passed the assessment order. Assessee's Contention: The learned Authorized Representative (AR) for the assessee submitted that the AO who passed the order was based at Panvel, which falls within the jurisdiction of the ITAT Pune Bench. Therefore, the assessee requested a transfer of the matter to the ITAT Pune Bench. Revenue's Contention: The learned Departmental Representative (DR) for the revenue submitted that since the AO was not within the jurisdiction of the Mumbai Bench, the appeal is not maintainable and should be dismissed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 271(1)(c),Section 274,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI. PRASHANT MAHARSHI & SHRI. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN

O R D E R PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (J.M.): 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/assessee against the order dated 20.11.2023 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the

2.

The brief facts as culled out from the order of the lower authorities are that the assessee filed his ITR on 09.11.2010 declaring income of Rs. 45,85,563/- which was processed u/s. 143(1). Later, the case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act after issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act was carried out on 23.02.2015 and income was assessed at Rs. 4,30,86,460/- by making addition of entire amount of Rs. 3,85,00,895/- on account bogus purchases. The penalty proceedings were also initiated u/s. 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act. The penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was passed on 30.03.2022 and penalty at 100% of the tax sought to be evaded to the tune of Rs. 49,16,937/- was imposed.

3.

Aggrieved by the said order, the appeal was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed by impugned order. Hence, the assessee filed this appeal and has raised following grounds of appeal:

1. “The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in sustaining the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.” 4. We have heard the Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee and Ld. DR on behalf of the revenue. During the argument, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. Page | 2 Balraj Singh Mander; A.Y. 2010-11 AO who has passed the order was based at Panvel within jurisdiction of Pune, ITAT bench and therefore made a request to transfer the matter to ITAT Bench, Pune.

5.

The Ld. DR on the other hand submitted that since the Ld. AO was not within the jurisdiction of Mumbai Bench, hence, the appeal is not maintainable and the same may be dismissed.

6.

We have considered the submissions and perused the material on record. Since Ld. AO who has passed the order dated 23.04.2021 was not within the jurisdiction of Mumbai Bench, therefore, the appeal is not maintainable and accordingly dismissed with the liberty to the assessee to file the same before the ITAT Pune Bench. The file/documents may be handed over to the assessee for presenting the same before the ITAT, Pune Bench.

7.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in the above terms.

Order pronounced in the open court on 17.10.2024

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →