9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 897 - ITAT GAUHATIJurisdiction of the ITAT Gauhati Bench to hear the appeal - Whether appeal was filed under improper jurisdiction? - HELD THAT - From the factual noting of position of addresses of the assessee on various documents extracted above from the order of Ld. CIT(A), it is noted that assessee always had its address in Kolkata. In both the orders of Ld. AO as well as Ld. CIT(A), there is no whisper about transfer of case of the assessee from Kolkata jurisdiction to Gauhati jurisdiction by complying with the provisions of the Act. In this respect, ld. CIT(A) from perusal of the assessment folder of the assessee has noted at page 161 about no challenge raised by the assessee for transfer of its case from the earlier AO i.e. ITO, Ward-10(1), Kolkata to the one who had passed the impugned assessment order i.e. ITO, Ward-9(2), Kolkata. Considering the judgment of ABC Ltd 2019 (3) TMI 501 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT as well as MSPL Ltd. 2021 (5) TMI 739 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT we find that the present appeal by the revenue is under improper jurisdiction, owing to the fact that impugned assessment order dated 23.03.2015 is passed by Ld. ITO, Ward-9(2), Kolkata. Accordingly, this present appeal is dismissed with the liberty to the Revenue to file a fresh appeal before the appropriate bench of the Tribunal having jurisdiction over the assessee along with petition for condonation of delay caused on this account. The period exhausted on account of filing the present appeal and its present disposal may be considered for condonation of delay in disposing the appeal, if filed by the revenue before the appropriate bench of ITAT having jurisdiction over the assessee. Appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding unexplained cash credits. 2. Jurisdiction of the ITAT Gauhati Bench to hear the appeal. Summary: Issue 1: Deletion of Addition u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 The revenue challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Central NER, Guwahati, which deleted the addition of Rs. 2,25,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under the head of unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The AO had treated the amount as unexplained credit due to the assessee's failure to establish the genuineness of share capital including share premium raised during the year. The AO's assessment was based on non-compliance with statutory notices and summons issued u/s 143(2), 142(1), and 131 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by elaborately dealing with the grounds raised and noting the position of addresses of the assessee on various documents. Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the ITAT Gauhati Bench The revenue filed an appeal before the Gauhati Bench of ITAT after obtaining authorization u/s 253(2) from the office of Ld. Pr. CIT, Central, Gauhati. However, the ITAT noted that the impugned assessment order was passed by the AO located at Kolkata, which falls outside the jurisdiction of the ITAT Gauhati Bench. The Tribunal referred to the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT Vs. ABC Papers Ltd. (2022) 141 taxmann.com 332 (SC), which held that the appropriate High Court for disposal of the appeal would be the one where the case was assessed by the AO. Further, the Tribunal cited the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of MSPL Ltd. Vs. PCIT & Ors, which clarified that the President of the Tribunal does not have the power to transfer a pending appeal from one bench to another bench outside the headquarters in a different state. Considering these judgments, the ITAT concluded that the appeal was filed under improper jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with the liberty to the revenue to file a fresh appeal before the appropriate bench of the Tribunal having jurisdiction over the assessee, along with a petition for condonation of delay caused on this account. Conclusion: The appeal of the revenue was dismissed due to improper jurisdiction, with the liberty to refile before the appropriate bench. The decision emphasized the importance of jurisdictional compliance in filing appeals.
|
