Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE
Before: MEMBER, & DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE
।आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”एस एम सी” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE BEFORE MS.ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Rakesh H Mehta, HUF, V The Income Tax Officer, 9 Vidyavihar Building, s Ward-27(3)(1), Mumbai. Deraser Lane, Ghatkopar, East Mumbai – 400077. PAN: AAKHR9328C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Gopal Ranwlani – JCIT Date of hearing 04/11/2024 Date of pronouncement 05/11/2024 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:
This is an appeal filed by the Assessee directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal), Pune-11 dated 21.06.2024 under section 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. On the facts and the circumstances of the appellant’s case and in law the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in ITA upholding the addition of Rs.7,28,450/ upholding the addition of Rs.7,28,450/- made by the Assessing Officer made by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 29.12.2016, on acc u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 29.12.2016, on acc u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 29.12.2016, on account of allegedly fictitious sundry creditors allegedly fictitious sundry creditors as on 31.03.2014 arising from as on 31.03.2014 arising from regrouping of balances in the subsequent financial year and ignoring regrouping of balances in the subsequent financial year and ignoring regrouping of balances in the subsequent financial year and ignoring the appellant’s diligent compliance and comprehensive documents the appellant’s diligent compliance and comprehensive documents the appellant’s diligent compliance and comprehensive documents submitted submitted submitted to to to substantiate substantiate substantiate the the the identity, identity, identity, genuine genuine genuineness, and creditworthiness of the sundry creditors and without giving sufficient creditworthiness of the sundry creditors and without giving sufficient creditworthiness of the sundry creditors and without giving sufficient opportunity to explain the discrepancy. opportunity to explain the discrepancy.
2. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend, modify The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend, modify The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend, modify and/or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal. and/or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal. and/or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal. The appellant prays before the Hon'ble Tribunal to delete the appellant prays before the Hon'ble Tribunal to delete the appellant prays before the Hon'ble Tribunal to delete the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) and/or any additions made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) and/or any additions made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) and/or any other relief as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit.” other relief as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit.” other relief as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit.”
There was a letter received by Email requesting There was a letter received by Email requesting There was a letter received by Email requesting for adjournment, the conte , the content of letter is reproduced as under : nt of letter is reproduced as under :
2 2.1 Thus, it can be observed that the impugned request for adjournment has been sent by someone who claims to be authorized representative. However, no name has been mentioned by the Authorized Representative. Also, no Vakalatnama or Authority Letter is on record. In these facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned letter is rejected and accordingly the adjournment is rejected.
Findings & Analysis : 3. We have heard ld.DepartmentalRepresentative for the Revenue and perused the records. It is observed from the assessment record that the assessment order has been passed by Income Tax Officer-27(3)(1), Mumbai. The Address mentioned in Form No.36 and Assessment Order of the assessee is as under : M/s.RakeshH.Mehta (HUF), 9/ Vidya Vihar Building, Derasar Lane, M.G.Road, Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai – 400077.
Ld.Departmental Representative for the Revenue submitted that the assessee’s case was centralized, therefore, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2014-15 which was pending before ld.CIT(A)-25, 3 Mumbai was transferred to ld.CIT(A), Pune-11. Ld.DR submitted that these facts are mentioned in the ld.CIT(A)’s order.
As per the Standing Order under Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 - Notification No. F.No.63-Ad (AT)/97, dated 16-09-1997, “The ordinary jurisdiction of the Bench will be determined not by the place of business or residence of the assessee but by the location of the office of the Assessing Officer.”
5.1 Thus, as per the above mentioned standing order, the jurisdiction of the Bench is decided based on the Location of the Assessing Officer. In this case, the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order is situated in Mumbai. Therefore, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench will have jurisdiction over the impugned appeal.
5.2 The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune Bench in the case of S K Education Trust vs CIT vide order dated 1st Oct 2024 have held that Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Pune Bench do not have jurisdiction as the Assessing 4 Officer was situated outside the jurisdiction of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Pune.
5.3 Similarly, ITAT Mumbai Bench in ACIT Vs. Bank of Baroda(e-Vijaya Bank) in dated 30.07.2024 have decided that ITAT Mumbai Bench do not have jurisdiction as the Assessment Order was passed by AO at Bangalore.
There for all the reasons discussed,the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable.The assessee is at liberty to file appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench if deemed fit.