Loading judgment…
Facts
For A.Y. 2010-11, the assessee's income was reassessed from Rs. 45,85,563/- to Rs. 4,30,86,460/- due to an addition of Rs. 3,85,00,895/- on account of bogus purchases. A penalty of Rs. 49,16,937/- was imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, which was sustained by the CIT(A). The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT Mumbai Bench against this order.
Held
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai Bench held that the appeal was not maintainable before them as the Assessing Officer who passed the order was based in Panvel, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Pune ITAT Bench. The appeal was dismissed, granting the assessee liberty to file it before the ITAT Pune Bench.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal is maintainable before the Mumbai ITAT Bench when the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction falls under the Pune ITAT Bench.
Sections Cited
Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in the above terms.
Order pronounced in the open court on 17.10.2024