MAYUR JOITKUMAR JAIN,MUMBAI CENTRAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 20(2), MUMBAI, LAL BAUG

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

It emerges during the course of hearing that “situs” of the assessee’s Assessing Officer framing regular assessment is in Mumbai as he is stated to have been assessed at Mumbai by the learned ACIT, Circle-20(2), Mumbai.

Faced with this situation, learned counsel submits that Delhi benches of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal very well have jurisdiction to entertain this assessee’s instant appeal;

Mayur Joitkumar Jain and more particularly, in light of the fact that the same is directed against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s lower appellate order. I find no merit in the assessee’s instant arguments in light of this tribunal’s STANDING ORDER UNDER INCOME-TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 defining territorial jurisdiction of various benches of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal; as on 01.10.1997 wherein “situs” of the assessee’s Assessing Officer is not covered under Delhi benches jurisdiction. We wish to make it clear here that not only para 4 of the said STANDING ORDER adopts “situs” of the location of the “office of the Assessing Officer” as the decisive factor in such an instance. We further quote PCIT Vs. ABC Paper Ltd. (2022) 447 ITR 1 (SC) deciding the very issue against the assessee.

We accordingly dismiss the assessee’s instant appeal for want of territorial jurisdiction of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi with liberty to be instituted afresh before the appropriate benches. It is made clear that delay in such a situation thereof; if any, as on date, shall stand condoned. Ordered accordingly.