Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI JAGADISH
Hybrid Financial Services Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner of Sterling Centre, Unit No.104, Vs. Income Tax, 1st Floor, Andheri-Kurla Road, Circle-10(1)(1), Andheri (East), Mumbai. Mumbai – 400 093. [PAN: AAACM-2824-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथE की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri Chandramouli, C.A (Virtual) GHथE की ओर से /Respondent by : Shri P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 29.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 29.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, ADDL/JCIT(A)-1, Coimbatore [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 26.12.2023 arising from the assessment order passed by ACIT, Circle-10(1)(1), Mumbai u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) on 23.12.2016. :- 2 -:
When this appeal was taken up for hearing, it was noticed that the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 23.12.2016 was passed by ACIT, Circle-10(1)(1), Mumbai. As per Rule 4 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 read with paragraph 4 of Notification No.FNo.63-AD(AT/97), dated 16th September, 1997 as amended from time to time, the ordinary jurisdiction of the Bench of the Tribunal to decide an appeal is to be determined by the location of the office of the A.O. Therefore, the assessee was called upon to make submission on the maintainability of the appeal.
In response, the Ld. A.R submitted that its appeal may be transferred to ITAT, Mumbai Bench and in case the Hon’ble Bench is of opinion that it is not a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction for transfer of its appeal then, one opportunity may be granted to re-file the appeal condoning the delay.
We have heard the learned AR. Admittedly, the assessment
order which emanated in the present proceeding was passed by the A.O located at Mumbai. As per Rule 4 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 read with paragraph 4 of Notification No.FNo.63- AD(AT/97), dated 16th September, 1997 issued inconsonance with the extant rule, the jurisdiction of Bench which can decide the appeal is to :- 3 -: be determined by the location of the A.O and in the instant proceeding the appeal should have been filed before ITAT, Mumbai Bench not in ITAT, Chennai Bench. It is also in consonance with the view expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. ABC Papers Ltd. [2022] 289 taxmann 150 (SC).
In view of the aforesaid, we hold that the present appeal is not maintainable due to lack of jurisdiction, hence are dismissed. However, keeping in view of the fact that the assessee has filed the appeal under the bonafide belief that the appeal is maintainable in Chennai Bench since, the first appellate authority, which has disposed of assessee’s appeal is located in Coimbatore. We grant liberty to the assessee to file fresh appeal before ITAT, Mumbai Bench along with petition seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. With the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 29th May, 2024. (जगदीश) (महावीर िसंह) (Jagadish) (Mahavir Singh) लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य /Accountant Member उपा" /Vice President लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य चे"ई/Chennai, "दनांक/Dated: 29th May, 2024. EDN/- :- 4 -: