INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(1), PUNE, PUNE V. REGENCY MAHAVIR PROPERTIES, DHOLE PATIL ROAD, PUNE

ITA 1487/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Pune against Regency Mahavir Properties concerning a penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The penalty was initially levied by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Thane. The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, quashed this penalty, leading to the current appeal by the Revenue. The primary legal issue was the jurisdiction of the Pune bench of the ITAT to hear the appeal, given that the assessing officer's jurisdiction was outside Pune. The Tribunal, referencing a Supreme Court decision and its own standing orders, concluded that the Pune bench did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, which should be heard by the Mumbai benches.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 473610 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 12-07-2024
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT Vs ABC Paper Ltd. [2022, 447 ITR 1 (SC)]
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARVIND DESAI LD.
• Section: 143(3); 250; 271(1)(c); 153A

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH ‘B’ PUNE ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 4 BEFORE HON’BLE SMT. ASTHA CHANDRA JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1487/PUN/2024 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Pune . . . . . . . Appellant V/s Regency Mahavir Properties, A3-5th Floor, The Fifth Avenue, Nr. Hotel Regency, Dhole Patil Rd., Pune-411001 PAN: AAJFR6383G . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee by : None for the assessee Revenue by : Mr Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’] Date of conclusive Hearing : 16/10/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 16/10/2024 ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM; This appeal is instituted by the Revenue u/s 253(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’ hereinafter] against DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1064437931(1) dt. 29/04/2024 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. ‘NFAC/CIT(A)’ hereinafter] passed u/s 250 of the Act which in turn quashed the order of penalty dt. 22/03/2017 passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Thane [‘Ld. AO’]. ITO Vs Regency Mahavir Properties ITA No.1487/PUN/2024 AY:2010-11 ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 4 2. This appeal was called twice; none appeared at the behest of the respondent assessee, nor there is any application placed on record for adjournment. On a primary briefing from the Ld. DR Mr Desai & having regard to the case records we deem it fit to proceed ex-parte u/r 25 of the ITAT-Rules, 1963 and adjudicate limited issue of jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Advanced accordingly. 3. It emerges at the very outset from the Ld. DR Mr Desai’s submission that; in this case the assessing officer who framed the order levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1 Thane. It is candidly then submitted that, the situs of the assessing officer who exercised the jurisdiction for imposition of penalty over the respondent assessee falls outside the jurisdiction of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune Benches Pune. Therefore, the present appeal of the Revenue against the impugned order is not maintainable for adjudication before this bench. In support of this contention the Ld. DR beside pressing into service the standing order of ITAT issued in the year 1971 also relied on the recent judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in ‘PCIT Vs ABC Paper Ltd.’ reported in [2022, 447 ITR 1 (SC)] ITO Vs Regency Mahavir Properties ITA No.1487/PUN/2024 AY:2010-11 ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 4 4. We are mindful to state here that, although certain benches of the Tribunal exercise its jurisdiction over more than one state, however explanation 4 to Standing Order dt. 01/10/1997 issued under rule 4(1) of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 categorically prescribes that; the ordinary jurisdiction of the Benches of the Tribunal shall be based on the location of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Reinforcing the former stipulation, the Hon’ble Supreme court in its judgement in ‘PCIT Vs ABC Papers Ltd.’ (supra), has put the issue of jurisdiction of appellate forum to rest by categorically holding that, the ‘situs of the assessing officer’ is the only key factor for determining the jurisdiction of appellate forum irrespective of any administrative order passed u/s 127 of the Act in relation to transfer cases. 5. In the instant case we note that, situs of the assessing officer who framed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act as well as the assessing officer who imposed the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act which is under challenge, undisputedly falls beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Pune Tribunal/Benches. In this clinching factual position, we therefore are of the considered view that this Tribunal's Pune benches at Pune have no jurisdiction to ITO Vs Regency Mahavir Properties ITA No.1487/PUN/2024 AY:2010-11 ITAT-Pune Page 4 of 4 entertain the instant appeal of the Revenue going by the Standing Order (supra) which notified the territorial jurisdiction of various benches in Tribunal. As per the foregoing notification (supra), the Tribunal's Mumbai Benches, Mumbai is vested with the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Revenue’s instant appeal. 6. In view of aforestated discussion & judicial precedents pressed into service, without offering our comments on merits of the case, we for the aforestated reason deem it fit to dismiss this appeal as ‘not maintainable’ with a grant of leave to the appellant Revenue to institute the same before an appropriate bench of the Tribunal which in law exercises the jurisdiction over the jurisdictional assessing officer of the respondent assessee who framed the order levying penalty for the year under consideration. Ergo ordered accordingly. 7. In result, the appeal is DISMISSED in aforestated terms. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, orders pronounced in the open court on this Wednesday, 16th October, 2024. -S/d- -S/d- ASTHA CHANDRA G. D. PADMAHSHALI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / PUNE ; दिन ांक / Dated : 16th October, 2024 आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1.अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT Concerned. 4. The CIT(A) Concerned. 5. DR, ITAT, Bench ‘B’, Pune 6. ग र्डफ़ इल / Guard File. आिेश नुस र / By Order वररष्ठ दनजी सदिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय न्य य दिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. "