Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd,(Successor to Capgemini India Pvt Ltd), Navi Mumbai V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle - 11, Pune

ITA 294/PUN/2018

AI Insights

The case involves Capgemini Technology Services India Limited appealing against an order from the CIT(A)-55, Mumbai, concerning the assessment year 2012-2013. The primary legal issue was the territorial jurisdiction of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune, over the appeal. The Tribunal highlighted that the correct jurisdiction is determined by the location of the Assessing Officer's office, not the place of business or residence of the assessee. The Tribunal referenced several precedents, including decisions from the Supreme Court, to support its conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed due to improper jurisdiction.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 138041 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 4 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-07-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 02-07-2023
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 04-02-2018
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT vs. ABC Paper Limited [2022] 447 ITR (1) (SC), MSPL Ltd. vs. PCIT [2021] 127 taxmann.com 379 (Bom.), PCIT vs. MSPL Ltd. [2023] 150 taxmann.com 41 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Search and seizure
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “C” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.294/PUN./2018 Assessment Year 2012-2013 Capgemini Technology Services India Limited, Airoli Knowledge Park, Plot No.IT-1, IT-2, IT-1/PT, TTC Industrial Area, Thane- Belapur Road, Airoli, Navi Mumbai – 400 708 Maharashtra. PAN AABCM4573E [Erstwhile PAN AAACK2632B] vs., The ACIT, Circle-11, Room No.212, 2 nd Floor, PMT Commercial Building, Shanker Seth Road, Swargate, Pune. PIN – 411 037. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri M.P. Lohia & Shri Nikhil Tiwari For Revenue : Shri Shishir Srivastava Date of Hearing : 03.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 04.07.2023 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-2013, is directed against the CIT(A)-55, Mumbai’s, order dated 12.11.2017, passed in Case No.CIT(A)-55/IT-52/DCIT- 14(1)(2)/16/17, in proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“In short Act”]. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2 ITA.No.294/PUN./2018 Capgemini Technology Services India Limited, Navi Mumbai. 2. It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that the DCIT-14(1)(2) had in fact framed the assessment in issue dated 19.05.2016 at Mumbai. His “situs” has to be treated at Mumbai only in otherwords. That being the case, we invited learned counsel’s attention towards this tribunal’s Standing Order notified w.e.f. 01.10.1997 under the Income Tax [Appellate Tribunal] Rules, 1963 specifying various bench(es) of the tribunal having territorial jurisdiction wherein clause (4) thereof makes it crystal clear 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”. Hon’ble apex court’s recent landmark decision in PCIT vs. ABC Paper Limited [2022] 447 ITR (1) (SC) as well as MSPL Ltd. vs. PCIT [2021] 127 taxmann.com 379 (Bom.); upheld in PCIT vs. MSPL Ltd. [2023] 150 taxmann.com 41 (SC), have also settled the law that it is only the “situs” of the Assessing Officer framing assessment which forms the determinative factor for territorial jurisdiction of the tribunal for the purpose of entertaining the concerned litigant’s appeal in question. 3. Learned counsel at this stage sought to buttress the assessee’s stand that it has been carrying-out it’s regular business activities from Pune only. We are afraid that such a factor would 3 ITA.No.294/PUN./2018 Capgemini Technology Services India Limited, Navi Mumbai. hardly decide the tribunal’s jurisdiction in foregoing terms. Faced with the situation, we reject the assessee’s instant appeal “as returned” with liberty to file the same afresh before the appropriate bench(es) of the tribunal as per law. We further make it clear that we have not adjudicated upon any of the issues raised in the instant appeal in law as well as on merits, whatsoever. Ordered accordingly. 4. This assessee’s appeal is dismissed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on 04.07.2023. Sd/- Sd/- [DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 04 th July, 2023 VBP/- Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The Ld. CIT(A)-55, Mumbai. 4. The CIT-14, Mumbai. 5. D.R. ITAT, Pune “C” Bench, Pune 6. Guard File. //By Order// Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.