R R CONSTRUCTIONS AND INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 868/PUN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 March 2024AY 2016-2017Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE (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 ITAT held that the assessment order was framed without territorial jurisdiction by the Pune Bench. Therefore, the appeal was rejected as returned.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT Pune Bench. The assessment order, however, was framed by an Assessing Officer located in Chennai.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the ITAT Pune Bench had the territorial jurisdiction to hear an appeal when the assessment was made by an officer outside its jurisdiction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

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, PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

Hearing: 19.03.2024Pronounced: 26.03.2024

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE [THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING] BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.868/PUN./2023 [E-APPEAL] Assessment Year 2016-2017 R R Constructions And The Assistant Commissioner of Infrastructure India Private Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Limited, Basement, R.E. Apartments, 70, Arya Bodhi Tower, Near Salasbury vs. Gowda Road, West Park, Pune – 411 037. Mambalam. Tamilnadu. PIN – 600 033 Maharashtra. PAN AADCR6735R (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Rahul Hakani For Revenue : Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 19.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 26.03.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. :

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2016-2017, arises against the CIT(A), Pune-11, Pune’s Din and Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1053561663(1), dated 06.06.2023, involving proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It transpires at the outset that the learned Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-5(2), Chennai had in fact framed the impugned assessment dated 24.12.2018 at Chennai thereby not having “situs” within the territorial jurisdiction of the 2 ITA.No.868/PUN./2023 Pune Bench(es) of the ITAT as per the Standing Order issued Under Income Tax [Appellate Tribunal] Rules, 1963 notified w.e.f. 01.10.1997 and PCIT Vs. ABC Papers Ltd (2022) 447 ITR 1 (SC). Faced with this situation, we reject the assessee’s instant appeal “as returned” with liberty to be instituted afresh before the appropriate bench(es) of the tribunal having territorial jurisdiction as per “situs” of the Assessing Officer in the foregoing terms. Ordered accordingly.

3.

This assessee’s appeal I.T.A.No.868/PUN./2023 is “rejected as returned” in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 26.03.2024.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →