Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue filed appeals challenging the order of the CIT(A) which deleted additions made by the AO. The assessee is Bank of Baroda. The appeals were initially filed before the Mumbai Bench of the ITAT.
Held
The Tribunal held that the jurisdiction of the ITAT to adjudicate an appeal lies within the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order. This is based on the Supreme Court's decision in ABC Papers Ltd.
Key Issues
The issue is about the correct bench of the ITAT for adjudicating the appeal, based on the location of the Assessing Officer.
Sections Cited
250, 127, 260A, 269
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA No. 2781/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) ITA No. 2782/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) ITA No. 2784/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2010-11)
ACIT-2(1)(1) Bank of Baroda (e-Vijaya Bank) Room No. 575, 5th Floor, C-26, 2nd Floor, Baroda Corporate Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, M. K. Road, Centre, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 020 Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 PAN/GIR No. AAACV 4791 J (Assessee) : (Respondent)
Assessee by : Shri S. Ananthan & Ms. R. Lalitha Respondent by : Shri R. A. Dhyani
Date of Hearing : 15.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 30.07.2024
O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:
These appeals have been filed by the Revenue, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘ld.CIT(A) for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'),
pertaining to the Assessment Years (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2010-11, 2016-17 and 2017-18.
As the facts are identical in all the three appeals, we hereby pass a consolidated order in all these appeals.
Briefly stated the assessee Bank of Baroda (erstwhile Vijaya Bank), is a public sector company, filed its return of income. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny
2 ITA No. 2781/M/24 (AY: 2017-18) ITA No. 2782/M/24 (AY: 2016-17) ITA No. 2784/M/24 (AY: 2010-11) ACIT vs. Bank of Baroda (e-Vijaya Bank) and the assessment order was passed by the Joint/Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax,
Large Tax Payers Unit, Bangalore. The assessee was in appeal before the ld. CIT(A),
challenging the additions made by the ld. A.O.
The ld. CIT(A) deleted the impugned additions made by the ld. A.O. and against
which the Revenue is in appeal before us.
As this matter came up for hearing before us, the learned Authorised
Representative (ld. AR for short) for the assessee submitted that since the assessment
order was passed by the ld. A.O., situated at Bangalore, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to
decide this appeal would be the Bangalore Bench and not the Mumbai Bench in view of
the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ABC Papers Ltd. [2022] 447
ITR 1 (SC). The learned Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) for the Revenue
conceded to the same.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the assessment order placed on
record. It is observed that the original assessment order was passed by the ld. A.O. which
Jurisdictional High Court would be the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. In view of the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ABC Papers Ltd. (supra), wherein it
was held that appeal against every decision of the ITAT shall lie only before the High
Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order is
situated, even if the case or the cases of assessee are transferred invoking power u/s. 127
of the Act, the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer has passed the
3 ITA No. 2781/M/24 (AY: 2017-18) ITA No. 2782/M/24 (AY: 2016-17) ITA No. 2784/M/24 (AY: 2010-11) ACIT vs. Bank of Baroda (e-Vijaya Bank) order, shall continue to exercise jurisdiction of the appeal. This would also be applicable
to appeals that are filed before the Tribunal.
From the above, it is evident that the present appeal filed by the Revenue can be
adjudicated only by the Bangalore bench, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of ABC Papers Ltd. (supra) and in the subsequent decision of Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. MSPL Ltd. [2023] 150 taxmann.com 41 (SC) which
has reiterated this proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ABC
Papers Ltd. (supra). The relevant extract of the said decision is cited hereunder for ease
of reference:
Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Assessee has drawn out attention to the recent decision of this Court in Pr. CIT v. ABC Papers Ltd. [2022] 141 taxmann.com 332/289 Taxman 150/447 ITR1, more particularly paragraphs 24, 25, 42 and 45. It is submitted that in the said decision, it is observed and held by this Court that the seat of ITAT and/or jurisdiction of the concerned High Court would depend upon where the seat of Assessing Officer was and the Assessing Officer, who passed the order. It is submitted that in the present case, the Assessing Officer passed order in Bangalore. Even the CITA also passed order in Bangalore. It is submitted that, therefore, as observed and held by this Court, the appeal against the Assessment order/the order passed by the CITA would only lie before the ITAT, Bangalore. 4. The aforesaid factual aspects have not been disputed by Shri N Venkataraman, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the Revenue. 5. In paras 24, 25, 42 and 45 of the judgment and order in the case of ABC Papers Ltd. (supra), this Court has observed and held as under - "24. Keeping the above principle in mind, we will now return to the inquiry into the appropriate High Court for filing an appeal against an order of a bench of the ITAT exercising jurisdiction over more than one state. We notice that the issue has already fallen for consideration before a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi way back in 1978 in the case of Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta. Having considered the matter in detail, the High Court of Delhi held that the "most appropriate" High Court for filing an appeal would be the one where the Assessing Officer is located. The decision was followed in Suresh Desai (supra) by Justice Lahoti (as he then was) and provided additional reasons in support of the same view. The interpretative choices are based on the following reasons, which we have reformulated as under: 24.1 As benches of the ITAT exercise jurisdiction over more than one state, Explanation to Standing Order No. 1 of 1954 and Standing Order No. 1 of 1967 issued under the Rules prescribe that, the jurisdiction of the ITAT should be based on the location of the Assessing Officer. The same principle should apply for determining the jurisdiction of the High Court for an appeal against the decision of the ITAT. 24.2 It would be appropriate for the ITAT to refer a question of law to the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer or the CIT which has decided the case is
4 ITA No. 2781/M/24 (AY: 2017-18) ITA No. 2782/M/24 (AY: 2016-17) ITA No. 2784/M/24 (AY: 2010-11) ACIT vs. Bank of Baroda (e-Vijaya Bank) located, as these authorities would be bound to follow the decision of the concerned High Court. 24.3This interpretation will also be in consonance with the expression "in relation with any State, the High Court of that State" provided in the definition of the "High Court" in Section 66(8) (under the present 1961 Act, it is Section 269). 24.4 The appeals and references cannot be made to a High Court only on the basis that a bench of the ITAT is located within the jurisdiction of the said High Court, as it will create an anomalous situation for that as well as other High Courts. 24.5 In view of the doctrine of precedents and the rule of binding efficacy of law laid down by a High Court within its territorial jurisdiction, a question of law arising for decision in a reference should be determined by the High Court which exercises territorial jurisdiction over the situs of the Assessing Officer (Suresh Desai). 25. The principle laid in Seth Banarasi Dass is followed in Suresh Desai & Associates v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Commissioner of Income-tax v. Digvijay Chemicals Ltd. and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Motorola India Ltd. It is interesting to note that this basic principle is accepted and abided as a precedent even in the two subsequent judgments of the High Court of Delhi in Sahara and Aar Bee. Thus, it is well-settled that the appellate jurisdiction of a High Court under section 260A is exercisable by a High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the assessing officer is located. 42. The power of transfer exercisable under section 127 is relatable only to the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Authorities. It has no bearing on the ITAT, much less on a High Court. If we accept the submission, it will have the effect of the executive having the power to determine the jurisdiction of a High Court. This can never be the intention of the Parliament. The jurisdiction of a High Court stands on its own footing by virtue of section 260A read with section 269 of the Act. While interpreting a judicial remedy, a Constitutional Court should not adopt an approach where the identity of the appellate forum would be contingent upon or vacillates subject to the exercise of some other power. Such an interpretation will clearly be against the interest of justice. 45. In conclusion, we hold that appeals against every decision of the ITAT shall lie only before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order is situated. Even if the case or cases of an assessee are transferred in exercise of power under Section 127 of the Act, the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer has passed the order, shall continue to exercise the jurisdiction of appeal. This principle is applicable even if the transfer is under Section 127 for the same assessment year(s)." 6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, it cannot be said that the High Court has committed any error in setting aside the order passed by the President of the ITAT transferring the appeals from the Bangalore Bench to the Mumbai Bench. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High court. Therefore, now the appeals will be heard by the ITAT, Bangalore Bench. In view of the above, the present Special Leave Petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
As it is now a settled proposition of law that the jurisdiction of the ITAT in
adjudicating an appeal would lie within the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer who had
passed the assessment order which is the subject matter of appeal before the Tribunal, we,
5 ITA No. 2781/M/24 (AY: 2017-18) ITA No. 2782/M/24 (AY: 2016-17) ITA No. 2784/M/24 (AY: 2010-11) ACIT vs. Bank of Baroda (e-Vijaya Bank) therefore, are inclined to dismiss these appeals filed by the Revenue with the liberty to
the Revenue to file these appeals before the ITAT having jurisdiction over the assessing
officer who had passed the assessment order in these cases, i.e., the Bangalore Bench.
The delay in filing the appeal shall be condoned as if the assessee has filed the appeal in
the first instance within the period of limitation.
In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed for statistical
purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30.07.2024.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Billaiya) (Kavitha Rajagopal) Accountant Member Judicial Member Mumbai; Dated : 30.07.2024 Roshani, Sr. PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT - concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard File BY ORDER,
(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai