Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed two appeals against the orders of the CIT(A)/NFAC for Assessment Year 2017-18. One appeal was a 'quantum' appeal concerning assessment proceedings under Section 143(3), and the other concerned penalty proceedings under Section 271AAC(1). The original assessment was framed by the ITO, Ward-2(4), Kolkata.
Held
The Tribunal held that the Delhi benches do not have jurisdiction to entertain the 'quantum' appeal as the Assessing Officer was based in Kolkata, citing the Tribunal's Standing Order and the decision in PCIT Vs. ABC Paper Ltd. The penalty appeal was restored to the assessing authority for fresh decision.
Key Issues
Whether the Delhi benches of the ITAT have jurisdiction over appeals where the Assessing Officer is located outside Delhi. The tribunal's power to restore penalty proceedings to the Assessing Officer.
Sections Cited
271AAC(1), 143(3), 147, 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal
ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
These assessee’s twin appeals & 3236/Del/2025 for Assessment Year 2017-18, arise against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- 26/1075589086(1) & 1075577051(1) dated 09.04.2025 and 11.04.2025, in proceedings u/s 271AAC(1) and 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively.
Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.
Coming to the assessee’s “quantum” appeal it emerges at the outset that it was the learned
Faced with this situation, learned counsel submits that Delhi benches of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal very well have jurisdiction to entertain this assessee’s instant appeal; and, more particularly, in light of the fact that the same is directed against the CIT(A)/NFAC Delhi’s lower appellate order. We find no merit in the assessee’s instant arguments in light of this tribunal’s STANDING ORDER UNDER INCOME-TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 defining territorial jurisdiction of various benches of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal; as on 01.10.1997 wherein “situs” of the assessee’s Assessing Officer is not covered under Delhi benches jurisdiction. We wish to make it clear here that not only para 4 of the said STANDING ORDER adopts “situs” of the location of the “office of the Assessing Officer” as the decisive factor in such an instance but also PCIT Vs. ABC Paper Ltd. (2022) 447 ITR 1 (SC) has decided the very issue against the assessee. It’s quantum appeal stands declined therefore with liberty to be instituted afresh; as per law before the appropriate benches, if so advised. It is further made clear that delay; if any, as on date in institution thereof shall be deemed to have been condoned.
The assessee’s latter appeal involving the consequential penalty proceedings is restored back to the learned assessing authority to be decided afresh as per law subject to a rider that it shall be the appellant’s risk and responsibility only to plead and prove all the mitigating circumstances of making the impugned cash deposits; within three effective opportunities in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.