RAMESH GUPTA ,CHENNAI vs. ITO , WARD 30 (4) , DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 810/CHNY/2022Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 January 2024AY 2017-2018Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA.G (Accountant Member)3 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 jurisdiction for the appeal lies with the ITAT, Delhi, not Chennai. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as having been filed in the wrong jurisdiction.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT, Chennai. However, it was brought to the tribunal's notice that the assessee had passed away and the Assessing Officer was in Delhi. The appeal was incorrectly filed before the Chennai bench.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the correct jurisdiction for filing the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI MANJUNATHA.G

Hearing: 10.01.2024Pronounced: 10.01.2024

आदेश /O R D E R

PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless

2 Appeal Centre, Delhi in Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1044415528(1) dated 02.08.2022. The assessment order was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 30(4), Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18 u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’), vide order dated 19.12.2019.

2.

At the outset, the ld.counsel for the assessee informed that the assessee Shri Ramesh Gupta expired on 04.01.2024 due to heart stroke. He filed details of legal heirs which are as under:- 1. Chandra Gupta-Spouse 2. Kavitha – Daughter 3. Savitha – Daughter 4. Deepa – Daughter 5. Deepak – Son 6. Arthi – Daughter The ld.counsel for the assessee stated that the Assessing Officer of this appeal is in Delhi and assessment is framed by the Assessing Officer of Delhi i.e., Shri Ajay Sharma, Ward 30(4), Delhi and in any case, appeal cannot be filed before ITAT, Chennai. He agreed that assessee has wrongly filed this appeal before ITAT, Chennai. To this proposition, the ld.Senior DR also agreed and stated that the DR is objecting from the beginning that the appeal has to be filed before ITAT, Delhi and not before ITAT, Chennai.

3.

After taking the legal heirs on record, we are of the view that actual jurisdiction of this appeal lies at ITAT, Delhi and assessee has wrongly filed this appeal in wrong jurisdiction i.e., ITAT, Chennai. Hence, this appeal is dismissed as not filed within the right jurisdiction and dismissed as infructuous. However, we give liberty to the legal heirs to file the appeal before ITAT, Delhi within 30 days of receipt of this order by email. Hence, this appeal is dismissed as infructuous in term of the above.

4.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous.

Order pronounced in the open court on 10th January, 2024 at the time of hearing at Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →