Case Overview
Introduction
This article provides a detailed analysis of the ITA No. 2168/DEL/2019 case, where Panalpina World Transport India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon, challenged the assessment order made by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-7, New Delhi. The appeal was filed on March 12, 2019, and the final tribunal order was pronounced on March 24, 2023. The cross-appeals were filed by both the assessee and the Revenue, arising from the order dated December 3, 2018, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-43, New Delhi.
Case Background
Panalpina World Transport India Pvt. Ltd. is engaged in the business of logistics and transportation. For the assessment year 2010-11, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -10, Mumbai, passed an assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on May 29, 2014. Subsequently, the jurisdiction of the assessee’s assessing officer was transferred from Mumbai to Delhi.
The order dated December 3, 2018, by the CIT(A)-43, New Delhi, partially allowed the appeal of Panalpina World Transport India Pvt. Ltd. Both the assessee and the Revenue filed cross-appeals before the Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).
Legal Proceedings
The case was heard by the Delhi Bench ‘I’ of the ITAT, comprising Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’ble President, and Shri Saktijit Dey, Judicial Member, through video conferencing. During the hearing, it was noted that the assessment order culminating in the present proceeding was passed by an Assessing Officer located in Mumbai. The cross-appeals were filed in Delhi based on the jurisdiction of the CIT(A) who disposed of the appeal. The tribunal had to decide on the maintainability of the appeals before the Delhi Benches.
The assessee’s representative argued that the jurisdiction should be based on the location of the CIT(A) who passed the order, while the department contended that it should be based on the location of the Assessing Officer who passed the original assessment order.
Tribunal’s Analysis and Judgment
The tribunal referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Pr. CIT vs. ABC Papers Limited, which clarified that the jurisdiction of the appellate tribunal should be determined by the location of the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order. The tribunal noted that the assessment order in this case was passed by an Assessing Officer in Mumbai, and thus, the appeals should have been filed before the Mumbai Benches of the ITAT.
In conclusion, we hold that appeals against every decision of the ITAT shall lie only before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order is situated. Even if the case or cases of an assessee are transferred in exercise of power under section 127 for the same assessment year(s).
Based on this precedent, the tribunal concluded that the appeals filed before the Delhi Benches were not maintainable due to lack of jurisdiction. However, considering the bonafide belief under which the appeals were filed in Delhi, the tribunal granted liberty to the parties to file fresh appeals before the Mumbai Benches along with a petition for condonation of delay, which would be considered sympathetically by the concerned Bench.
Implications of the Judgment
This case underscores the importance of following procedural requirements regarding jurisdiction when filing appeals. The tribunal’s decision reinforces the principle that appeals should be filed based on the location of the Assessing Officer who passed the original assessment order, not the location of the CIT(A) who disposed of the appeal. This decision ensures clarity and consistency in the appellate process.
The judgment also highlights the importance of Supreme Court rulings in guiding lower courts and tribunals in the application of tax laws. The reliance on the ABC Papers Limited judgment ensures that jurisdictional issues are addressed uniformly across cases, providing a clear framework for future appeals.
Detailed Breakdown of the Tribunal Order
The tribunal order issued by the Delhi Bench ‘I’ of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, conducted through video conferencing, was clear and comprehensive. The order can be summarized as follows:
- Introduction: The tribunal’s jurisdiction over the cross-appeals for the assessment year 2010-11 was established. It mentioned the appellant’s and respondent’s arguments regarding the jurisdiction based on the location of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A).
- Appellant’s Argument: The tribunal noted the detailed submissions made by the assessee, arguing for the maintainability of the appeals before the Delhi Benches based on the location of the CIT(A).
- Response from the Departmental Representative: The Senior Departmental Representative argued in favor of the jurisdiction being determined by the location of the Assessing Officer who passed the original assessment order.
- Tribunal’s Decision: The tribunal concluded that the appeals were not maintainable before the Delhi Benches due to lack of jurisdiction, following the precedent set by the Supreme Court in ABC Papers Limited. The tribunal granted liberty to file fresh appeals before the Mumbai Benches with a petition for condonation of delay.
- Conclusion: The order concluded with the official pronouncement of the decision, emphasizing the tribunal’s commitment to fair and just application of tax laws.
The tribunal’s systematic approach ensures transparency and fairness in its proceedings, reflecting the principles of natural justice and procedural integrity.
Conclusion
The case of Panalpina World Transport India Pvt. Ltd. exemplifies the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and jurisdictional guidelines when filing appeals. The tribunal’s decision reinforces the principle that jurisdiction should be based on the location of the Assessing Officer who passed the original assessment order. This decision serves as a crucial reminder to taxpayers and tax authorities to ensure that appeals are filed in the correct jurisdiction to avoid dismissal on technical grounds.
