ARUNKUMAR RAMCHAND POPTANI,ULHASNAGAR, THANE V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), KALYAN, MOHAN PLAZA, KALYAN

ITA 2073/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Arunkumar Ramchand Poptani against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2010-11. The primary issues in the appeal included the rejection of the assessee's request for condonation of delay and the confirmation of an addition of Rs.36,56,409 on account of unexplained cash deposits in the bank. The ITAT Pune Bench, however, found that it did not have jurisdiction over the case, as the Assessing Officer was located in Kalyan, leading to the dismissal of the appeal on jurisdictional grounds.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 472104 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 26-11-2024
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 30-09-2024
• Other Referred Cases: S K Education Trust Vs. CIT, ACIT Vs. Bank of Baroda(e-Vijaya Bank)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ TRIPATHI
• Assessee Lawyers: SATYAPRAKASH VIRTUAL
• Keywords: Assessment record

Judgement Text

" ।आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”एस एम सी” Ɋायपीठ पुणेमŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2073/PUN/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Arunkumar Ramchand Poptani, 302, Manwani Mension, Goal Maidan, Ulhasnagar, Thane – 421001. PAN: AAXPP8396B V s The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kalyan. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Satyaprakash – AR(Virtual) Revenue by Shri Manoj Tripathi – DR Date of hearing 26/11/2024 Date of pronouncement 26/11/2024 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[NFAC] for A.Y.2010- 11 dated 15.09.2024 passed u/sec.250 of the Income tax Act, 1961. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The order dated 15/09/2024 bearing No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1068711618(1) passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act,1961 by the Hon’ble CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, is excessive, unreasonable, arbitrary, against the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore liable to be quashed. ITA No.2073/PUN/2024 2 2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Honourable CIT (Appeal) NFAC, Delhi has erred in not condoning the delay and dismissed the appeal of the Appellant even after calling for the Remand Report from the JAO. 3. On the facts and in circumstance of the case and in law, the Hon’ble CIT[A] has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.36,56,409/- on account of cash deposit in the bank, even though same is fully explainable with documentary evidence submitted and Remand Report from the Assessing Officer was called. 4. The Appellant craves to alter, add, delete, substitute, or modify and other grounds of appeal.” Findings and Analysis : 2. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. It is observed that Assessment order is passed by ITO-Kalyan, Maharashtra. It is observed from the assessment record that the assessment order has been passed by Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(1), Kalyan, Maharashtra. Kalyan falls under Thane district. The Address mentioned in Form No.36 and Assessment Order of the assessee is as under : M/s.Arunkumar Ramchand Poptani, 302, Manwani Mension, Gaol Maidan, Ulhasnagar, Thane – 421001. Maharashtra. 3. As per the Standing Order under Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 - Notification No. F.No.63-Ad (AT)/97, dated 16-09-1997, “The ordinary jurisdiction of the ITA No.2073/PUN/2024 3 Bench will be determined not by the place of business or residence of the assessee but by the location of the office of the Assessing Officer.” 3.1 Thus, as per the above mentioned standing order, the jurisdiction of the Bench is decided based on the Location of the Assessing Officer. In this case, the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order is situated in Kalyan, District-Thane. Therefore, ITAT Pune Bench does not have any jurisdiction in this case. Therefore, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench will have jurisdiction over the impugned appeal. 4. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune Bench in the case of S K Education Trust Vs. CIT ITA No.1140/PUN/2024 vide order dated 1st Oct, 2024 have held that Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Pune Bench do not have jurisdiction as the Assessing Officer was situated outside the jurisdiction of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Pune. 4.1 Similarly, ITAT Mumbai Bench in ACIT Vs. Bank of Baroda(e-Vijaya Bank) in ITA No.2781/Mum/2024, dated ITA No.2073/PUN/2024 4 30.07.2024 have decided that ITAT Mumbai Bench do not have jurisdiction as the Assessment Order was passed by AO at Bangalore. 5. There for all the reasons discussed, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable. The assessee is at liberty to file appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench if deemed fit. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 26th November, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 26th Nov, 2024/ SGR* आदेशकᳱᮧितिलिपअᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. 5. िवभागीयᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “एस एम सी” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune. "