DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. JCT LIMITED, DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
For AY 1999-2000, the appeal was dismissed in limine due to lack of territorial jurisdiction, with liberty to the Revenue to file it before ITAT Kolkata. For AY 2013-14, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding the reopening of assessment under Section 147 to be invalid as it was based on a mere change of opinion without any new tangible material, especially since the assessment was completed beyond four years and the assessee had consistently disclosed CERC income/loss.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed two appeals against CIT(A) orders for AY 1999-2000 and 2013-14. For AY 2013-14, the CIT(A) quashed a reassessment initiated under Section 147, which was beyond four years, on the ground that the assessee had consistently reported income/loss from Carbon Emission Reduction Credits (CERC) and there was no failure to disclose material facts or new tangible material for reopening.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Delhi ITAT has territorial jurisdiction over an appeal arising from a Kolkata assessment order. 2. Whether reopening of assessment under Section 147 beyond four years, on a mere change of opinion without new tangible material or non-disclosure of facts, is valid.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 254,Section 251,Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 147,Section 139,Section 142,Section 148,Section 2(24)(vd)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.1,673 citing187 Taxmann 312 · 2010 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Orient Craft Ltd.366 citing354 ITR 536 · 2013 · HC
- PCIT v. ABC Papers Ltd.181 citing447 ITR 1 · 2022 · SC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘E’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA
PER C.N. PRASAD, JM, These two appeals are filed by the revenue against different orders of the Ld. CIT(A)-29, New Delhi dated 10.12.2024 and 12.12.2024 for the A.Y. 1999-2000 and 2013- 14 respectively, arising out of the assessment orders passed u/s. 254 / 251 /143(3) of the Act for A.Y.1999-2000 and u/s. 144B r.w. 147 of the Act for the A.Y.2013-14. 2. Inspite of issue of notice none appeared on behalf of Assesseenor any adjournment application was moved. These appeals are disposed of on hearing the Ld. DR.
In so far as appeal for the A.Y. 1999-2000 is concerned we observe that this appeal arises from the consequential assessment order passed pursuant to the order of the Tribunal a
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central… vs Jct Limited, New DelhiDelhi19 Dec 2025Dismissed
Also relies on PCIT v. ABC Papers Ltd. and 1 other authority
For AY 1999-2000, the appeal was dismissed in limine due to lack of territorial jurisdiction, with liberty to the Revenue to file it before ITAT Kolkata. For AY 2013-14, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding...
- Sangeeta Kuriakos, Taleigao vs Assessment Unit, NFAC, DelhiPanaji16 Mar 2026Dismissed
Also relies on PCIT v. ABC Papers Ltd.
The ITAT Panaji Bench dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, citing that the situs of the AO (Mumbai) falls outside its territorial jurisdiction. It granted leave to the assessee to file the appeal before the appropri...
- Shirahatti Halu Utpadkara Sahakari Sangh… vs Income Tax Officer, Assessment UnitPanaji18 Feb 2026Dismissed
Also relies on PCIT v. ABC Papers Ltd.
The Tribunal, relying on previous judgments and the principle that the situs of the Assessing Officer determines jurisdiction, dismissed the appeal as not maintainable before the Panaji Bench. It granted leave to the ass...
- Shri Narayan Jan Kalyan Ewam Gramin Vikas… vs ITO Exemption Ghaziabad, GhaziabadAgra16 Dec 2025Dismissed
Also relies on PCIT v. ABC Papers Ltd.
The territorial jurisdiction for filing an appeal is determined by the location of the Assessing Officer, not the assessee's place of business or residence. This principle has been reinforced by the Supreme Court.
- DDIT(Int.Tax.)1(1), Mumbai vs The Bank of Tokyo- Mitsubishi Ltd, MumbaiMumbai19 Mar 2025Dismissed
Also relies on PCIT v. ABC Papers Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the territorial jurisdiction of its benches is determined by the location of the Assessing Officer who framed the assessment. Therefore, the Delhi benches lacked the jurisdiction to hear these appe...
More judgments on Section 251
- Jitendrakumar Bhikhabhai Shrimali, Mehsana vs ITO Ward 1, MehsaanaITA 1290/AHD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- ITO(Exemption), Ward, Jaipur vs Raj Rishi Bhartihari Matsya University…ITA 1167/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Urun Vividh Karyakari Vikas Society, Walwa vs ITO WD-5, SangliITA 472/PUN/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
- Shyam Sunder, Ballabgarh vs ITO, Ward 2(3), WardITA 1339/DEL/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Shyam Sunder, Ballabgarh vs ITO, Ward 2(3), FaridabadITA 1295/DEL/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
