DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 , LUDHIANA vs. RADIANT DIGITEK NETWORK LIMITED , KOTA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 687/CHANDI/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 December 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that the appeal was not maintainable before the Chandigarh Bench as the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer was in Jaipur. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT Chandigarh Bench. The assessment was originally framed by an AO in Jaipur. The Revenue's counsel conceded that the situs of the appeal lies with the Jaipur Bench of the ITAT.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the correct situs of the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal based on the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,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, CHANDIGARH

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY,

For Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT-DR
Hearing: 31.12.2024Pronounced: 31.12.2024

आदेश/ORDER

PER KRINWANT SAHAY, AM

1.

This appeal by Revenue is arising out of the order of ld. CIT(A)-5 Ludhiana in appeal No 11733/ROT/Jaipur/IT/CIT(A)- 5/Ldh/2019-20 order dated 27.03.2024. The assessment was framed by ITO Ward-5, Jaipur under Section 1243(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) vide his order dated 26.12.2019 for the assessment year 2017-18.

3.

At the outset, it is noticed that the assessment was framed by ITO 5(1) Jaipur and when this was confronted to ld. CIT-DR, she stated that the assessment record was transferred after centralization of Jujhar Group of cases in consequent to search conducted under Section 132 of the Act on 26.11.2021. She referred to transfer order of jurisdiction under Section 127 of the Act dated 18.11.2022 passed vide DIN and Order No. DIN & Order No.ITBA/COM/F/17/2022-23/1047510534(1)dated 18.11.2022 but when it was pointed out to ld. CIT-DR that in term of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 in term of provisions of Rule 4 and consequent standing order No.1 of 1987 dated 17.07.1987 as amended from time to time till date and finally amended w.e.f.

01.10.1997 the jurisdiction of all appeals and applications from the Districts, States and Union Territories are determined in terms of this standing order. It was pointed out that the AO is situated at Jaipur and hence the situs of this appeal lies with Jaipur Bench of ITAT. When these facts were confronted to her, she could not controvert the above fact situation.

4.

None is present from assessee side.

5.

After hearing ld. CIT-DR, we noted that the situs of this appeal does not lie to ITAT Chandigarh Benches rather it lies with ITAT Jaipur Benches. Even otherwise, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs ABC Papers Ltd. (2022) 447 ITR 1, the situs of the appeal lies wherever the jurisdiction of the AO is situated and in the present case, the AO is situated at Jaipur and hence, the jurisdiction of this appeal lies at ITAT, Jaipur. Hence, we dismiss this appeal of Revenue with opportunity to file this appeal afresh with ITAT Jaipur within 60 days from the date of this order. The condonation of delay will not be hindrance in filing of this appeal to the Revenue. In terms of the above, appeal of Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable.

6.

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable.

Order pronounced on 31.12.2024.

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →