ATHISHAY JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 3(1) , DELHI

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.