INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(1), NAGPUR V. .GGF MERCANTILE PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGPUR

ITA 415/NAG/2023

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Revenue and a cross-objection by the assessee, GGF Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., against an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in Nagpur for the assessment year 2011-12. The primary legal issue was the jurisdiction of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Nagpur Bench to hear the appeal, given that the original assessment order was passed by an Assessing Officer located in Mumbai. The ITAT found that according to the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, and related notifications, the appropriate jurisdiction for hearing the appeal was Mumbai, not Nagpur. This decision was influenced by a precedent set by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in a similar case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 474321 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 26-12-2023
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT Vs. ABC Papers Ltd., [2022] 289 taxmann 150(SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANDIPKUMAR SALUNKE
• Assessee Lawyers: KAPIL HIRANI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Bonafide belief
• Section: 143(3); 153C

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.415/Nag./2023 (Assessment Year : 2011–12) Income Tax Officer Ward–4(1), Nagpur ……………. Appellant v/s GGF Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. Shop no.45, Handloom Market Gandhigag, Nagpur 440 032 ……………. Respondent C.O. no.4/Nag./2024 (Arising out of ITA no.415/Nag./2023) (Assessment Year : 2011–12) GGF Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. Shop no.45, Handloom Market Gandhigag, Nagpur 440 032 ……………. Cross Objector (Original Respondent) v/s Income Tax Officer Ward–4(1), Nagpur ……………. Respondent (Original Appellant) Assessee by : Shri Kapil Hirani Revenue by : Shri Sandipkumar Salunke Date of Hearing – 04/12/2024 Date of Order – 12/12/2024 O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. Aforesaid appeal by the Revenue and cross objection by the assessee are against the impugned order dated 31/10/2023, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2011–12. 2 GGF Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.415/Nag./2023 C.O. no.41/Nag./2024 2. During the course of hearing, on a perusal of the assessment order dated 28/12/2017, passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r/w section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (\"the Act\"), we find that the said order dated 28/12/2017, was passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax–4(1)(2), Mumbai. We further find that in accordance with the provisions of rule–4 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, r/w Para–4 of the Notification no.F.no.63–AD(AT/97), dated 16/09/1997, as amended from time to time, the ordinary jurisdiction of the Bench of the Tribunal to decide appeal is to be determined by the location of the office of the Assessing Officer, whereas, the Revenue has filed its appeal before the ITAT, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, and the assessee has also filed its cross–objection before the ITAT, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, and consequent upon, the question arose on the maintainability of the Revenue’s appeal and assessee’s cross–objection filed before the ITAT, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur. 3. Before us, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties agree that identical issue has been decided by the Co–ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Delhi Bench, in ITA no.2168/Del./2019, etc., order dated 24/03/2023, wherein the Tribunal has dismissed the appeals by granting liberty to the assessee to file the appeals before the Bench of the Tribunal which is located in the City from where the assessment order has been passed by the Assessing Officer. The relevant findings of the Co–ordinate Bench, Delhi, in the order cited supra is reproduced below:– “3. We have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. Admittedly, the assessment order which culminates in the present proceeding was passed by an Assessing Officer located at Mumbai. As could be seen, after 3 GGF Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.415/Nag./2023 C.O. no.41/Nag./2024 the final assessment order was passed, the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer of the assessee Nagpur was transferred from Mumbai to Delhi and the appeal arising out of the assessment order was disposed of by the first appellate Nopul authority located in New Delhi. However, as per Rule 4(1) read with paragraph 4 of the standing order/notification issued in consonance with the extant rule, the jurisdiction of the Bench which can decide the appeal is to be determined by the location of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, since, the location of the Assessing Officer in the instant proceeding is at Mumbai, the appeals, necessarily, should have been filed before Mumbai Nagpur Benches and not in Dethi Benches. This is also in consonance with the view expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT Vs. ABC Papers Ltd., [2022] 289 taxmann 150(SC). 4. In view of the aforesaid, we hold that the present appeals are not maintainable due to lack of jurisdiction, hence, are dismissed. Accordingly, we do so. 5. However, keeping in view the fact that the parties have filed the appeals under a bonafide belief that appeals are maintainable in Delhi Benches, since the first appellate authority who has disposed of assessee's appeal is located in New Delhi, we grant liberty to the parties to filed fresh appeals before the Mumbai Benches along with petition seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeals, which shall be considered sympathetically by the concerned Bench. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the appeals are dismissed.” 4. Since in the present case, the assessment order dated 28/12/2017, has been passed by the Assessing Officer who was situated at Mumbai, therefore, the Revenue ought to have filed its appeal in the city from which city the Assessing Officer has passed the assessment order, and in the present case, the Assessing Officer was situated at Mumbai, while passing the assessment order. Hence, the present appeal and the cross–objection filed by either parties are not maintainable before this Bench and the same are liable to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. However, liberty is hereby granted to the Revenue and the assessee to filed its appeal / cross–objection before the appropriate Bench i.e., at Mumbai, along with application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeals, if required, which shall be considered by the concerned Bench in accordance with law. 4 GGF Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.415/Nag./2023 C.O. no.41/Nag./2024 5. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal and assessee’s cross–objection are dismissed in terms indicated above. Order pronounced in the open Court on 12/12/2024 Sd/- V. DURGA RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER Sd/- K.M. ROY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER NAGPUR, DATED: 12/12/2024 Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Nagpur; and (5) Guard file. True Copy By Order Pradeep J. Chowdhury Sr. Private Secretary Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Nagpur "