AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2016-17, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1079951235(1), dated 25.08.2025 involving proceedings under section 271C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
Delay of 8 days in filing of the assessee’s instant appeal is condoned in larger interest of justice and in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).
It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that there arises the first and fundamental issue of this tribunal’s Delhi benches’ jurisdiction itself since the assessee’s regular assessment jurisdiction is at Agra.
Faced with this situation, we hereby quote this Tribunal’s STANDING ORDER UNDER INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963 settling the instant issue of territorial jurisdiction of various Benches as per “location of the office of the Assessing Officer” in para 4 thereof. We also deem it appropriate to refer to hon’ble apex court’s recent landmark decision in PCIT Vs. ABC Papers Ltd. (2022) 447 ITR 1 (SC), settling the issue that it is only the “situs” of the Assessing Officer framing assessment which forms the decisive factor for the purpose of determining territorial jurisdiction.
Needless to mention, we wish to clarify here that this Tribunal’s forgoing STANDING ORDER applicable with effect from 1st November, 1997 has verbatim adopted the “situs” of the Assessing Officer framing assessment and, therefore, we conclude that their lordships’ detailed analysis would apply mutatis mutandis herein as well.
We accordingly conclude that Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s Delhi benches do not have territorial jurisdiction to decide the assessee’s instant appeal, subject to a rider that it shall indeed be at liberty to institute a fresh appeal, if so advised, before the appropriate benches and delay caused therein as on date, shall stand condoned.
This assessee’s appeal is dismissed in above terms.