9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 501X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which exercises territorial jurisdiction over the suits of the Assessing Officer HELD THAT:- Since the initial process of assessment was started at New Delhi and the final assessment was framed by the Assessing Officer at Ghaziabad, this court lacks territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. This court has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the lis over an order passed by the Assessing Officer, i.e. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad. Accordingly, the complete paper books of all the appeals are returned to the appellant-revenue for filing before the competent court of jurisdiction in accordance with law. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly. - ITA No. 130 of 2018, ITA No. 517 of 2017 - - - Dated: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s A Bench, Delhi in ITA No. 2263/Del/2012 dated 11.05.2017 for the assessee s case for A.Y. 2008-09, without adverting to the fact that each assessment year is separate as per the Income Tax Act, 1961.? iii) Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case, the Hon ble ITAT, Bench D , New Delhi has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 7,44,36,019/- made by Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of depreciation on chemical recovery plant when the complete plant was not put to use by the assessee during the year.? iv) Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case, the Hon ble ITAT, Bench D , New Delhi has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 7,44,36,019/- made by Assessing Officer when during the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), New Delhi (DCIT) at an assessed income of ₹ 17,53,54,906/- after making addition of ₹ 99,01,500/- on account of disallowance of depreciation on paper brands and ₹ 7,44,36,019/- on account of disallowance of depreciation on chemical recovery plant. Aggrieved by the order dated 30.12.2010, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. Vide order dated 16.2.2012, Annexure A.2, the appeal was allowed and the additions were deleted. Not satisfied with the order, the revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 11.5.2017, Annexure A.3, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the deletion of the additions made by the DCIT. A search a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Annexure A.4, making similar additions. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed by CIT(A), Kanpur vide order dated 20.12.2016, Annexure A.5. The appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed by the Tribunal at New Delhi vide order dated 01.9.2017, Annexure A.6. Since the initial process of assessment was started at New Delhi and the final assessment was framed by the Assessing Officer at Ghaziabad, this court lacks territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. 6. In The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad Vs. M/s Motorola India Ltd. (2010) 326 ITR 156, where the assessment was framed by the Assessing Officer at Bangalore, the Revenue in that case, had sought to justify the filing of the appeal in this Court on the ground that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ain the application under Sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 256 of the Act vested in the High Court of Bombay and not of Delhi. We are in respectful agreement with the aforementioned reasoning of the Delhi High Court. Accordingly, we hold that the preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the assessee-respondent is sustainable. xxxx xxxx xxxx A conjoint reading of the aforementioned provisions makes it evident that the Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner is empowered to transfer any case from one or more Assessing Officers subordinate to him to any other Assessing Officer. It also deals with the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
