DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SWARGATE, PUNE vs. BARCLAYS GLOBAL SERVICE CENTRE PVT LTD, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1222/PUN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 April 2024AY 2009-10Bench: HON’BLE SHRI S. S. GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that its jurisdiction is determined by the situs of the Assessing Officer. Since the Assessing Officer who framed the assessment was outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Pune bench, the appeal and cross-objection were not maintainable.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed an order of the CIT(A) which had allowed the assessee's appeal. The matter was previously remitted back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The CIT(A) again allowed the appeal, leading to the present appeal by the Revenue and a cross-objection by the assessee.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the territorial jurisdiction of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) to hear the appeal, based on the location of the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 253(4),Section 143(3),Section 92CA,Section 127

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENCH ‘A’ PUNE

Before: HON’BLE SHRI S. S. GODARA & SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI

For Appellant: Mr Sourabh Kulkarni [‘Ld. AR’]
For Respondent: Mr Keyur Patel [‘Ld. DR’]
Pronounced: 15/04/2024

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 1222/PUN/2023
CO No. 005/PUN/2024

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

द्वारा / Appearances Assessee by : Mr Sourabh Kulkarni [‘Ld. AR’] Revenue by : Mr Keyur Patel [‘Ld. DR’] Date of conclusive Hearing : 08/03/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 15/04/2024 ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM; The Revenue is in appeal against the order dt. 27/09/2023 of Commissioner of Appeals-13, Pune [in short ‘CIT(A)] passed u/s 250 r.w.s. 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’] in Appeal No PN/CIT(A)-13/ACIT, Company Cir 1(2), Chennai/2008-09/10155383/58 anent to assessment year 2009-10 [in short ‘AY’]. And against which, the assessee filed its cross objection u/s 253(4) of the Act on 27/02/2024.

ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 3

DCIT Vs Barclays Global Service Centre Pvt. Ltd. Co No. 005/PUN/2024

2.

At the outset of physical hearing it is noticed that, the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 92CA of the Act vide order dt. 18/03/2013 was framed by the Ld. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle-1(2), Chennai-34 [in short ‘AO’]. Which in an appeal, the Ld. CIT(A)-13, Pune by an order dt. 11/03/2020 allowed the appeal. The Revenue challenged the order of Ld. CIT(A) before Tribunal and thereagainst assessee filed its cross objection. In first round of appeal the Co- ordinate ‘C’ Bench by a consolidated order dt. 02/07/2027 in & CO No. 07/PUN/2021 remitted the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de-nova adjudication. In remand proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A)-13, Pune following his own adjudication/decision in AY 2014-15 in assessee’s case, allowed the appeal by impugned order dt. 27/09/2023, against which both the rival parties are before us in similar way as they were before.

3.

Without touching threefold issues brought to our notice by the rival parties i.e. (i) jurisdiction of Ld. CIT(A) in entertaining the appeal of the assessee company against the order of assessment passed by Ld. AO in the light ‘PCIT Vs ABC Paper Ltd.’ reported in [2022] 447 ITR 1 (SC) [Equivalent Citation 141 Taxmann.com 332 (SC)], (ii) admission of delayed filing of Cross Objection against Revenue’s present appeal and (iii) merits of the case/s, we have heard rival parties on a limited issue of jurisdiction of this Tribunal and subject to rule 18 of ITAT Rules, 1963 perused the relevant material placed on records.

4.

Although certain benches of the Tribunal exercise its jurisdiction over more than one state, the explanation 4 to Standing Order dt. 01/10/1197 issued under rule 4(1) of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 prescribes that; the ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 3

DCIT Vs Barclays Global Service Centre Pvt. Ltd. Co No. 005/PUN/2024 ordinary jurisdiction of the Tribunal should be based on the location of the Assessing Officer. The Hon’ble Supreme court’s decision in ‘PCIT Vs ABC Papers Ltd.’ (supra), has put the issue of jurisdiction of appellate forum to rest by holding that, the ‘situs of the assessing officer’ is the only key factor for determining the jurisdiction of appellate forum irrespective of any administrative order passed u/s 127 of the Act in relation to transfer of cases.

5.

In view of aforestated judicial precedent, since the situs of the Ld. AO who framed the assessment is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Tribunal, therefore without offering our comments on threefold issue dilated at para 3 hereinbefore, we deem it fit to dismiss the present appeal of the Revenue and the cross objection of the assessee as are not maintainable, however with leave to file them before appropriate bench of the Tribunal which exercises the jurisdiction over the Ld. AO who framed the assessment. Ergo ordered accordingly.

6.

In result, the appeal of the Revenue and Cross-Objection of the assessee stands DISMISSED in above terms. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, the order pronounced in the open court on this Monday 15th day of April, 2024.

-S/d- -S/d- S. S. GODARA G. D. PADMAHSHALI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / PUNE ; दिन ांक / Dated : 15th Day of April, 2024. आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1.अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT -1, Nashik 4. The CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi (India) 5. DR, ITAT, Bench ‘A’, Pune 6. ग र्डफ़ इल / Guard File. आिेश नुस र / By Order वररष्ठ दनजी सदिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय न्य य दिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.

ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 3

More judgments on Section 92CA

All 3,978 judgments and leading authorities on Section 92CA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →