Ms. Pallavi Jain vs JAO the Income Tax Officer

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2020-21, 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/250/2025-26/1084235171(1), dated 30.12.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

It transpires during the course of hearing that we hardly need to delve into the relevant factual matrix at length herein. This is for the precise reason that the assessee/appellant is stated to be regularly assessed before the ITO, Ward-3, Patiala as on the date of the assessment order passed on 14.01.2025. We are further informed that her assessment jurisdiction has thereafter been transferred to the ITO, Ward -70(1), Delhi vide order dated 19.05.2025.

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 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 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 she 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.