Ms. Namrita Singh, Chandigarh vs Assessee

PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM

Both the appeals by different assessees are directed against

the common order of ld. CI T(Appeals) XXVI, New Delhi dated

20.09.2013 for assessment year 2009-10.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer

in the cases of both the assessees has framed the assessment

under section 143(3) on dated 28.12.2011. The Assessing 2

Officer who has framed the assessments in the cases of both the

assessees is Income Tax Officer, Ward 32(2) New Delhi.

3. The Assessing Officer at New Delhi has mentioned address

of the assessees in assessment orders to be house No. 90, Sector

8A, Chandigarh. The assessees have challenged the aforesaid

assessment order passed by I TO Ward 32(2), New Delhi before

ld. CIT(Appeals) XXVI, New Delhi. The ld. CI T(Appeals) New

Delhi decided both the appeals of the assessees vide the

impugned common order dated 20.09.2013. In this impugned

order also, the address of the assessees has been mentioned as

House No. 90, Sector 8A, Chandigarh. The assessees have also

in their appeal papers filed before ld. CI T(Appeals), New Delhi in

form No. 35, have mentioned the same address of Chandigarh.

4. Both the assessees have now filed the appeal before ITAT,

Chandigarh Bench challenging the impugned order of ld.

CIT(Appeals) XXVI, New Delhi instead of filing their appeals

before I TAT, New Delhi having jurisdiction to entertain appeals

of both the assessees.

5. The ld. counsel for the assessee on being questioned as to

why the assessees have filed the present appeals before

Chandigarh Bench, stated that since both the assessees are

residing at Chandigarh, therefore, appeals are filed before I TAT

Chandigarh Bench and also referred to certain correspondence

with the Income Tax Department at New Delhi and explained

that both the assessees have requested the Assessing Officer

and concerned departmental officer at New Delhi for transfer of

their assessment records from New Delhi to Chandigarh. The 3

letter dated 17.09.2014 addressed by I TO, Ward 32(2), New Delhi

to DCIT, Circle 1(1) Chandigarh is also referred to during the

course of arguments, in which it is stated that records in both

the cases have already been transferred from New Delhi to

Chandigarh. The ld. counsel for the assessee, however

submitted that no transfer order of the record has yet been

received by the assessee under any provision of law or under

section 127 of the Income Tax Act. The ld. counsel for the

assessee, therefore, submitted that since assessee's are residing

at Chandigarh, therefore, the appeals of the assessees may be

entertained by I TAT, Chandigarh Bench.

6. On the other hand, ld. DR submitted that the jurisdiction

of Appellate Tribunal shall have to be determined by the location

of the office of the Assessing Officer. The ld. DR, therefore,

submitted that since assessment orders in these cases have

been framed by the I TO, Ward 32(2), New Delhi, therefore,

assessee shall have to prefer appeal before I TAT, Delhi Bench

instead of filing the appeal before ITAT, Chandigarh Bench. The

ld. DR, therefore, submitted that appeals of the assessees are

not maintainable because the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal

has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeals filed by the assessee

against the orders of ld. CIT(Appeals), New Delhi. The ld. DR,

therefore, submitted that both the appeals may be dismissed

without going into the merits of the case.

7. We have considered the rival submissions and material

available on record. Rule 4(1) of Appellate Tribunal Rules

provides that ' A Bench shall hear and determine such appeals

and applications made under the Act and the President may by 4

general or special order direct." In pursuance of sub-rule 1 of

Rule 4 of Appellate Tribunal Rules and in supercession of earlier

standing orders, the standing order under Income Tax (Appellate

Tribunal) Rules, 1963 was passed and it was directed that

subject to any special order, all appeals and applications from

the Districts, States and Union Territories specified in column 3

shall w.e.f. 01.10.1997 be heard and determined by the Benches

specified in column 2 of the table. The name of Chandigarh

Bench is mentioned at S.No. 7 of standing order assigning the

jurisdiction over part of Punjab, part of Haryana, Himachal

Pradesh and Union Territory of Chandigarh. In the same

standing order, clause 4 is mentioned as "The ordinary

jurisdiction of the Bench will be determined not by the pl ace of

business or residence of the assessee but by the location of the

off ice of the Assessing Off icer." It is, therefore, clear that the

jurisdiction of Bench of Appellate Tribunal shall be determined

by location of the office of the Assessing Officer and shall not be

influenced by the place of business or residence of the assessee.

Admittedly, in the case of both the assessees, the assessment

orders have been passed by ITO, Ward 32(2), New Delhi,

therefore, I TAT, Chandigarh Bench will not have jurisdiction

over the appeals of the present assessees because by standing

order, no such jurisdiction of New Delhi have been assigned to

ITAT, Chandigarh Bench. According to Rule 13 of Appellate

Tribunal Rules, any appeal by the assessee under section 253(1),

the Assessing Officer concerned shall be made a respondent to

the appeal.

5

8. The ld. counsel for the assessee further stated that

assessee has received some letters from the Income Tax

Department that their cases will be transferred to Income Tax

Office. The correspondence pertained after the passing of the

assessment order by the Assessing Officer and as such the

letters referred to by ld. counsel for the assessee would not

assign any jurisdiction to the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench over the

appeals of the assessees. The ld. counsel for the assessee

further submitted that since both the assessees are residing at

Chandigarh, therefore, appeals of the assessees may be

entertained by I TAT, Chandigarh Bench. The arguments of ld.

counsel for the assessees are wholly irrelevant, without

substance and merits. The assessees had already given their

addresses at Chandigarh before Assessing Officer as well as

before ld. CI T(Appeals) New Delhi. Therefore, when assessees

have been assessed and their appeals have been decided by

Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(Appeals) at New Delhi by

mentioning the same address of Chandigarh, there were no

reasons for the assessee for not filing appeal before Delhi Bench.

Further, as noted above, the jurisdiction of the Bench shall not

be determined by the place of business or residence of the

assessee. Assessees cannot suo-moto determine the jurisdiction

of Bench for filing their appeals as per their convenience.

Therefore, such arguments of ld. counsel for the assessee are

rejected.

9. Considering the above discussion in the light of the

Appellate Tribunal Rules as quoted above, since the Chandigarh

Bench of the Tribunal have not been assigned any jurisdiction to 6

entertain appeals filed against the orders of the ld. CIT(Appeals),

New Delhi, therefore, we hold that ITAT Chandigarh Bench has

no jurisdiction to entertain both the appeals of the assessee.

Same are liable to be dismissed being not maintainable for want

of jurisdiction.

10. In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are

dismissed for want of jurisdiction by Chandigarh Bench.

However, both the assessees are at liberty to pursue their

appropriate remedy in filing their appeals before appropriate

Bench, if so advised, in accordance with law.

11. In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are

dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 18 t h

February,2015.

Sd/- Sd/-

(T.R.SOOD) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 18 t h February,2015. 'Poonam' Copy to:

The Appellant, The Respondent, The CI T(A), The CI T,DR

Assistant Registrar, I TAT Chandigarh