AJAY LALCHAND BHANSALI,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD 1(2)(5), RAJKOT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1035/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 August 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)1 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 appeal, originating from an order by ITO Ward 1(2)(5), Rajkot (Gujarat), lacked jurisdiction as the Mumbai bench is not the jurisdictional bench for this ward.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the order dated 05.01.2024, which upheld an addition of Rs. 2,50,000/- as unexplained income made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee did not appear for the hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, has the jurisdiction to hear an appeal originating from the jurisdiction of ITO Ward 1(2)(5), Rajkot (Gujarat).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 250,Section 69A,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA

For Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, SR D.R

Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 05.01.2024, impugned herein, passed by the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short “Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner”) for the A.Y. 2017-18.

2.

In the instant case, the Assessing Officer (AO) vide order dated 16.12.2019 u/s 143(3) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) has made the addition of Rs.2,50,000/- as unexplained income u/s 69A of the Act and taxed the same u/s 115BBE of the Act. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the aforesaid addition before the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner, who vide impugned order affirmed the aforesaid addition, against which the Assessee is in appeal before us.

3.

Despite sending notice for the date of hearing for today i.e. 21.08.2024, the Assessee neither appeared nor filed any adjournment application.

4.

Considering the submission of the Ld. DR. that “the instant appeal emanates from assessment order dated 16.12.2019 passed by the AO i.e. ITO ward-(1)(2)(5), Rajkot (Gujarat) and therefore this court situated at Mumbai has no jurisdiction and consequently this appeal is liable to be dismissed", the instant appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction, however with liberty to the Assessee to file appropriate appeal before the Jurisdictional Bench of the Tribunal having jurisdiction over ITO ward Rajkot.

5.

We clarify that the Assessee is not supposed to deposit the appeal fee again and he can avail benefit of appeal fees of Rs.10,000/-

already deposited for this appeal under consideration.

6.

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands dismissed

sans jurisdiction, however with liberty to file fresh appeal before the jurisdictional Bench of the Tribunal, in the aforesaid terms.

Order pronounced in the open court on 21.08.2024.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →