M/s. Jet Lite (India) Ltd. vs DCIT

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

The instant batch of six appeals involves the single assessee herein “M/s. Jet Life (India) Ltd.” This assessee and the department’s respective cross appeals i.e. ITA No. 1976 & 2121/Del/2008 for AY 2000-01; the former’s appeal ITA No.440/Del/2009 for AY 2001-02; their cross appeals ITA Nos. 2055 & 2472/Del/2011 for AY 2002-03 and ITA No. 3510/Del/2013 for AY 1994-95 arise against the CIT(A)’s separate four orders dated 24.03.2008, 23.12.2008, 25.02.2011, 04.03.2013 in case nos. 233/06-07, 211/06-07, 154/06-07 and 133/06-07 (assessment year-wise), in proceedings u/s 143(3) in former three and u/s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) Act in the last assessment year; respectively.

Cases called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

We notice during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that it was the learned DCIT, Central Circle, Lucknow, who had framed the impugned four assessments dated 21.03.2003, 19.10.2004, 20.07.2005 and 29.03.2001; assessment years-wise, respectively, in the assessee’s case. That being the case, we refer to 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. Hon’ble apex court’s recent landmark decisions i.e. PCIT Vs. ABC Papers Ltd. (2022) 447 ITR 1 (SC) and PCIT Vs. MSPL Ltd. (2023) 150 taxmann.com 41 (SC), have further settled the instant issue at rest that it is only the “situs” of the Assessing Officer framing assessment which forms the decisive factor for the purpose of determining territorial jurisdiction of various benches of the tribunal.

We indeed deem it appropriate to clarify here that this Tribunal’s forgoing STANDING ORDER applicable with effect from 1^st 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 decline both these assessee’s and Revenue’s instant cross appeals thereby concluding that ITAT, Delhi Benches do not have territorial jurisdiction to decide the same, subject to a rider that they shall indeed be at liberty to institute their respective appeals, as the case may be, before the Lucknow benches and delay caused therein involving the entire intervening period as on date shall stand condoned.

These assessee’s and Revenue’s appeals ITA Nos.1976/Del/2008, 440/Del/2009 & 2005/Del/2011 and ITA Nos.2472/Del/2011, 2121/Del/2008 & 3510/Del/2013 are dismissed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective files.