DCIT, CHENNAI V. Dorling Kindersley India (P) Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 1126/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2368 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 26-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S BHARATH

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , A BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.1126/CHNY/2016 ( [ [ / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(2), CHENNAI -34. VS M/S. DORLING KINDERSLEY INDIA (P) LTD., (MERGED WITH PEARSON INDIA EDUCATION SERVICES P LTD), ELNET SOFTWARE CITY OFFICE, GROUND FLOOR OF SERVICE BLOCK, TS 140, BLOCK 2 & 4, RAJIV GANDHI SALAI, TARAMANI, CHENNAI -600 113. PAN: AABCD1360J ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. BHARATH, CIT / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SAROJ KUMAR PARIDA, ADVOCATE /DATE OF HEARING : 19.06.2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.06.2019 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-44, NEW DELHI DATED 13.10.2015 AND PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. AS PER THE STANDING ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL, THE ORDINARY JURISDICTION OF THE BENCH WILL BE DETERMINED NOT BY THE PLACE OF 2 I.T.A. NO. 1126/CHNY/2016 BUSINESS OR THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT BY THE LOCATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THIS CASE, THE OFFICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS LOCATED AT NEW DELHI. THEREFORE AN EXPLANATION WAS CALLED FOR, FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. THE COMMISSIONER EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS AMALGAMATED WITH M/S.TUTORVISTA GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2014-15 AND THE PRESENT JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS VESTED WITH DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(2), CHENNAI. THEREFORE HE REQUESTED THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL TO DISPOSE THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 3. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE STANDING INSTRUCTION ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN EXERCISE OF HIS JURISDICTION UNDER SUB-RULE 1 OF RULE 4 OF INCOME TAX RULES, 1963 DEMARCATING THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF EACH BENCH. CHENNAI BENCHES WAS ALLOTTED THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF ENTIRE STATE OF TAMILNADU AND UNION TERRITORY OF PONDICHERRY EXCLUDING MAHE. MOREOVER, IT WAS ALSO CLARIFIED THAT THE ORDINARY JURISDICTION OF THE 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. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE REPRODUCE THE CLAUSE 4 OF STANDING INSTRUCTION ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THIS TRIBUNAL:- 3 I.T.A. NO. 1126/CHNY/2016 THE ORDINARY JURISDICTION OF THE BENCH WILL BE DETERMINED NOT BY THE PLACE OF BUSINESS LOCATION OR RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE BUT BY THE LOCATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER AT NEW DELHI. THE CONSENT OF THE PARTIES MAY NOT GIVE ANY JURISDICTION TO THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL TO ENTERTAIN THE APPEAL. THEREFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE CHENNAI BENCHES IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. HOWEVER THE DEPARTMENT IS AT LIBERTY TO FILE AN APPEAL BEFORE THE APPROPRIATE BENCH WHICH HAS TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION, IN CASE THEY ARE ADVISED SO. WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATION, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 21 ST JUNE, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) (INTURI RAMA RAO) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . . . ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, /DATED, THE 21 ST JUNE, 2019. RSR /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. ( )/CIT(A) 4. /CIT 5. /DR 6. [ /GF