Sh. Alok Singh, Chandigarh V. ITO, Chandigarh

ITA 1052/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 86171 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 27-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR AMA RVEER SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: BRIJ BHUSHAN SHARMA
• Keywords: Assessment record
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1052/CHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SHRI ALOK SINGH, VS THE ITO, # 90, SECTOR 8-A, WARD 32(2), CHANDIGARH. NEW DELHI. PAN: AAYPS1127J & ITA NO. 1053/CHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 MS. NAMRITA SINGH, VS THE ITO, # 90, SECTOR 8-A, WARD 32(2), CHANDIGARH. NEW DELHI. PAN: AABPS4387H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI BRIJ BHUSHAN SHARMA RESPONDENT BY : DR. AMARVEER SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 12.02.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.02.2015 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM BOTH THE APPEALS BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEES ARE DIRECTE D AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) XXVI, NEW DELH I DATED 20.09.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER IN THE CASES OF BOTH THE ASSESSEES HAS FRAMED THE A SSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) ON DATED 28.12.2011. THE ASSE SSING 2 OFFICER WHO HAS FRAMED THE ASSESSMENTS IN THE CASES OF BOTH THE ASSESSEES IS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 32(2) NEW DEL HI. 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT NEW DELHI HAS MENTIONED AD DRESS OF THE ASSESSEES IN ASSESSMENT ORDERS TO BE HOUSE N O. 90, SECTOR 8A, CHANDIGARH. THE ASSESSEES HAVE CHALLENGED THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY ITO WARD 32(2), NEW DELH I BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) XXVI, NEW DELHI. THE LD. CIT(APPE ALS) NEW DELHI DECIDED BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES VID E THE IMPUGNED COMMON ORDER DATED 20.09.2013. IN THIS IM PUGNED ORDER ALSO, THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEES HAS BEEN M ENTIONED AS HOUSE NO. 90, SECTOR 8A, CHANDIGARH. THE ASSESSEES HAVE ALSO IN THEIR APPEAL PAPERS FILED BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS ), NEW DELHI IN FORM NO. 35, HAVE MENTIONED THE SAME ADDRESS OF CHA NDIGARH. 4. BOTH THE ASSESSEES HAVE NOW FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE ITAT, CHANDIGARH BENCH CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) XXVI, NEW DELHI INSTEAD OF FILING THEI R APPEALS BEFORE ITAT, NEW DELHI HAVING JURISDICTION TO ENTER TAIN APPEALS OF BOTH THE ASSESSEES. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON BEING QUESTIONE D AS TO WHY THE ASSESSEES HAVE FILED THE PRESENT APPEALS BE FORE CHANDIGARH BENCH, STATED THAT SINCE BOTH THE ASSESS EES ARE RESIDING AT CHANDIGARH, THEREFORE, APPEALS ARE FILE D BEFORE ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH AND ALSO REFERRED TO CERTAIN CORRE SPONDENCE WITH THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AT NEW DELHI AND EX PLAINED THAT BOTH THE ASSESSEES HAVE REQUESTED THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER AND CONCERNED DEPARTMENTAL OFFICER AT NEW DELHI FOR TRANSFER OF THEIR ASSESSMENT RECORDS FROM NEW DELHI TO CHANDIGA RH. THE 3 LETTER DATED 17.09.2014 ADDRESSED BY ITO, WARD 32(2 ), NEW DELHI TO DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1) CHANDIGARH IS ALSO REFERRED TO DURING THE COURSE OF ARGUMENTS, IN WHICH IT IS STATED THAT REC ORDS IN BOTH THE CASES HAVE ALREADY BEEN TRANSFERRED FROM NEW DE LHI TO CHANDIGARH. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, HOWE VER SUBMITTED THAT NO TRANSFER ORDER OF THE RECORD HAS YET BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER ANY PROVISION OF LAW OR UNDER SECTION 127 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT SINCE ASSESSEE' S ARE RESIDING AT CHANDIGARH, THEREFORE, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESS EES MAY BE ENTERTAINED BY ITAT, CHANDIGARH BENCH. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE JURISD ICTION OF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SHALL HAVE TO BE DETERMINED B Y THE LOCATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. DR , THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT SINCE ASSESSMENT ORDERS IN THESE CAS ES HAVE BEEN FRAMED BY THE ITO, WARD 32(2), NEW DELHI, THER EFORE, ASSESSEE SHALL HAVE TO PREFER APPEAL BEFORE ITAT, D ELHI BENCH INSTEAD OF FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE ITAT, CHANDIGAR H BENCH. THE LD. DR, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT APPEALS OF THE AS SESSEES ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE BECAUSE THE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF TH E TRIBUNAL HAS NO JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(APPEALS), NEW DELHI. THE LD. DR, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT BOTH THE APPEALS MAY BE D ISMISSED WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND MATERI AL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. RULE 4(1) OF APPELLATE TRIBUN AL RULES PROVIDES THAT A BENCH SHALL HEAR AND DETERMINE SUCH APPEALS AND APPLICATIONS MADE UNDER THE ACT AND THE PRESIDE NT MAY BY 4 GENERAL OR SPECIAL ORDER DIRECT. IN PURSUANCE OF SUB-RULE 1 OF RULE 4 OF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AND IN SUPERCESS ION OF EARLIER STANDING ORDERS, THE STANDING ORDER UNDER INCOME TA X (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 WAS PASSED AND IT WAS DIRECTE D THAT SUBJECT TO ANY SPECIAL ORDER, ALL APPEALS AND APPLI CATIONS FROM THE DISTRICTS, STATES AND UNION TERRITORIES SPECIFI ED IN COLUMN 3 SHALL W.E.F. 01.10.1997 BE HEARD AND DETERMINED BY THE BENCHES SPECIFIED IN COLUMN 2 OF THE TABLE. THE NAME OF CH ANDIGARH BENCH IS MENTIONED AT S.NO. 7 OF STANDING ORDER ASS IGNING THE JURISDICTION OVER PART OF PUNJAB, PART OF HARYANA, HIMACHAL PRADESH AND UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH. IN THE SAME STANDING ORDER, CLAUSE 4 IS MENTIONED AS THE ORDINARY JURISDICTION OF THE BENCH WILL BE DETERMINED NOT BY THE PLACE OF BUSINESS OR RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE BUT BY THE LO CATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS, THEREFORE, CLEAR THAT THE JURISDICTION OF BENCH OF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SHALL B E DETERMINED BY LOCATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SHALL NOT BE INFLUENCED BY THE PLACE OF BUSINESS OR RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. ADMITTEDLY, IN THE CASE OF BOTH THE ASSESSEES, THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS HAVE BEEN PASSED BY ITO, WARD 32(2), NEW DEL HI, THEREFORE, ITAT, CHANDIGARH BENCH WILL NOT HAVE JUR ISDICTION OVER THE APPEALS OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEES BECAUSE B Y STANDING ORDER, NO SUCH JURISDICTION OF NEW DELHI HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED TO ITAT, CHANDIGARH BENCH. ACCORDING TO RULE 13 OF APP ELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, ANY APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SE CTION 253(1), THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCERNED SHALL BE MADE A RES PONDENT TO THE APPEAL. 5 8. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED THA T ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED SOME LETTERS FROM THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THAT THEIR CASES WILL BE TRANSFERRED TO INCOME TAX OFFICE. THE CORRESPONDENCE PERTAINED AFTER THE PAS SING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND AS SU CH THE LETTERS REFERRED TO BY LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT ASSIGN ANY JURISDICTION TO THE ITAT, CHANDIGARH BEN CH OVER THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE BOTH THE ASSESSEES ARE RESIDING AT CHANDIGARH, THEREFORE, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES MAY BE ENTERTAINED BY ITAT, CHANDIGARH BENCH. THE ARGUMEN TS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEES ARE WHOLLY IRRELEVANT, WI THOUT SUBSTANCE AND MERITS. THE ASSESSEES HAD ALREADY GI VEN THEIR ADDRESSES AT CHANDIGARH BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) NEW DELHI. THEREFORE, WHEN ASSESSEES HAVE BEEN ASSESSED AND THEIR APPEALS HAVE BEEN DECI DED BY ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. CIT(APPEALS) AT NEW DELHI BY MENTIONING THE SAME ADDRESS OF CHANDIGARH, THERE WE RE NO REASONS FOR THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT FILING APPEAL BEFO RE DELHI BENCH. FURTHER, AS NOTED ABOVE, THE JURISDICTION OF THE BE NCH SHALL NOT BE DETERMINED BY THE PLACE OF BUSINESS OR RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEES CANNOT SUO-MOTO DETERMINE THE J URISDICTION OF BENCH FOR FILING THEIR APPEALS AS PER THEIR CONV ENIENCE. THEREFORE, SUCH ARGUMENTS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE ARE REJECTED. 9. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION IN THE LIGHT OF TH E APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS QUOTED ABOVE, SINCE THE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAVE NOT BEEN ASSIGNED ANY JU RISDICTION TO 6 ENTERTAIN APPEALS FILED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE L D. CIT(APPEALS), NEW DELHI, THEREFORE, WE HOLD THAT ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH HAS NO JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN BOTH THE APPEALS OF TH E ASSESSEE. SAME ARE LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED BEING NOT MAINTAINA BLE FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. 10. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES AR E DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION BY CHANDIGARH BE NCH. HOWEVER, BOTH THE ASSESSEES ARE AT LIBERTY TO PURSU E THEIR APPROPRIATE REMEDY IN FILING THEIR APPEALS BEFORE A PPROPRIATE BENCH, IF SO ADVISED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 11. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES AR E DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH FEBRUARY,2015. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 18 TH FEBRUARY,2015. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH