ITO WARD - 1(3), Ghaziabad V. Kishore Kumar, Ghaziabad

ITA 1493/DEL/2020

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Ghaziabad against an order passed by CIT(A)-1, Noida, which pertained to the assessment year 2009-10. The primary contention of the revenue was that the CIT(A)-1, Noida lacked jurisdiction to decide the appeal as the case should have been handled by the jurisdictional CIT(A), Ghaziabad. The tribunal referenced a similar case (ITA No.1185/Del/2020 and others) where it was found that orders passed by CIT(A)-1 and 2 Noida after their compulsory retirements were not sustainable in law. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the orders and restored the matter to the appropriate CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 116123 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 31-05-2023
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 16-08-2020
• Other Referred Cases: Fatima Bibi vs. United Commercial Bank, Kanwar Singh Saini vs. State
• Laws Referred To: CBDT's notification no.66/2014 dated 13.11.2014, order no.G-03/2014-15 dated 15.11.2014 of Ld. Pr. CCIT (CCA), Kanpur
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Competent authority; Set aside
• Section: 22

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1493/Del/2020 Assessment Year: 2009-10 ITO Ward- 1 (3) Ghaziabad Vs Kishore Kumar, H. No.1166, Noor Nagar, Sihani Road, Ghaziabad PAN No.AWLPK6244P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT (DR) Respondent by None Date of hearing: 01/06/2023 Date of Pronouncement: 01/06/2023 ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the revenue is preferred against the order of the CIT(A), Noida dated 29.09.2018 pertaining to A.Y.2009-10. 2. Though the revenue has raised as many as 22 grounds of appeal but the substantive grievance can be understood from the following grounds :- 3. Because the impugned order suffers from a jurisdictional defect since CIT(A)-1, Noida could not have decided the appeal of the assessee without having jurisdiction over the case when the assessee in this case filed the appeal with the CIT(A)-1, Noida whereas the same should have been filed with and decided by the jurisdictional CIT(A), Ghaziabad. 4. Because the jurisdiction to hear these appeals vested only with Commissioner 2 of Income Tax (Appeals), Ghaziabad and that Sh. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava was not holding the charge of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ghaziabad in September, 2018 (when the appeal order is shown to have been passed) nor was this case ever assigned to him by the competent authority i.e. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur. 5. Because the order of CIT(A)-1, Noida is illegal, bad in law and totally non-est being passed without jurisdiction in violation of CBDT’s notification no.66/2014 dated 13.11.2014 r.w.s order no.G-03/2014-15 dated 15.11.2014 of Ld. Pr. CCIT (CCA), Kanpur (copies enclosed), assigning jurisdiction of CIT(A), Ghaziabad and other CIT(A)s of UP (West & Uttarakhand). 3. The impugned quarrel was decided by this Tribunal in a bunch of appeals in ITA No.1185/Del/2020 and others. The most relevant finding of the coordinate Bench read as under :- 12. “In view of what has been discussed above and following the decisions rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Fatima Bibi (supra), United Commercial Bank (supra) and Kanwar Singh Saini (supra) without entering into the merits of the captioned appeals, we are of the considered view that the impugned orders suffer from jurisdictional defect which is not curable having been passed by Ld. CIT(A)-1 and 2 Noida after his compulsory retirements with effect from 11.06,2019, when he was functus officio, are not sustainable in the eyes of law, hence, nullities. So question framed is answered in affirmative. 13. Consequently, impugned orders passed in the captioned appeals by CIT(A)-1 and 2 Noida are set aside 3 to the files of the respective jurisdictional CIT(A)-1 and 2 Noida and CIT(A) Ghaziabad to decide afresh in accordance with law by providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee / revenue. Consequently aforesaid appeals / cross objections are allowed for statistical purposes.” 4. Respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench we restore this appeal to the jurisdictional CIT(A) to be decided afresh in accordance with law by providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee / revenue consequently the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. 5. Decision announced in the open court on 01.06.2023. Sd/- Sd/- [ANUBHAV SHARMA] [N.K. BILLAIYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: .05.2023 *Neha* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CITi 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar ITAT, New Delhi