Mayur Joitkumar Jain vs ACIT

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 arises against the C IT(A)/NFAC, De lhi’ s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1081304407(1) dated 29.09.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in shor t “the Act”).

Heard both the p arties at length. Case file perused.

It emerges during the course o f hearing that “situs” o f the assessee’s Assessing Officer framing regular assessme nt is in Mumbai as he is stated to have been assessed at Mumbai by the learned ACIT , Cir cle-20(2), Mumbai.

Faced with this situatio n, learned counsel submits that Delhi benche s of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal very well have jurisdictio n to enter tain this assessee’s instant appeal; and more particularly, in light of the fact that the same is directed against the C IT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s low er appellate order. I find no merit in the assessee’s instant arguments in light of t his tribunal’s STANDING ORDER UNDER INCOME-TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 defining territorial jurisdiction of various benche s of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal; as on 01.10.1997 wherein “situs” of the assessee’s Assessing Officer is not covered under Delhi benches jurisdiction. We wish to make it clear here that not o nly para 4 of the said ST ANDING ORDER adopts “situs” o f the location of the “office of the Assessing Officer” as the decisive factor in such an instance. We further quote PCIT Vs. ABC Paper Ltd. (2022) 447 ITR 1 (SC) deciding the very issue against the assessee.

We accordingly dismiss the assessee’s instant appeal for want of territorial jurisdiction o f the Income T ax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi with liberty to be instituted afresh before the appropriate benches. It is made clear that delay in such a situation thereof; if any, as on date, shall stand condoned. Ordered accordingly.

This assessee’s appeal is dismissed in above terms.