Case Number: ITA 1224/DEL/2020
Appellant: ITO WARD – 2(5), Noida
Respondent: Vinoj Bhati, GB Nagar
Assessment Year: 2009-10
Result: 2009-10
Case Filed on: 2020-06-18
Order Type: Final Tribunal Order
Date of Order: 2022-11-10
Pronounced on: 2022-11-10
In the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘H’, New Delhi, a series of appeals were brought forth by the Revenue against the orders passed by the appellate authority for various assessment years. Among these was ITA 1224/DEL/2020, filed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) Ward – 2(5), Noida, against Vinoj Bhati of Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, for the assessment year 2009-10.
The case revolves around a jurisdictional dispute wherein the Revenue questioned the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who decided the original appeal. The appellant, ITO Ward – 2(5), Noida, challenged the order passed by the CIT (A)-1, Noida, citing jurisdictional errors.
The primary contention raised by the Revenue was that the appeal should have been filed and decided by the jurisdictional CIT (A), Ghaziabad, rather than CIT (A)-1, Noida. The Revenue highlighted that the appellate order dated 28.12.2018 was received only on 18.06.2019, post the compulsory retirement of Sh. S.K. Srivastava, the then CIT (A)-1, Noida.
Furthermore, the Revenue argued that the order uploaded on the ITBA after an inordinate delay was illegal and violated the CBDT’s notification assigning jurisdiction to CIT (Appeals), Ghaziabad and CIT (Appeals)-1 & 2, Noida.
1. The CIT (A)-1, Noida, erred in law and on facts by deciding the appeal without jurisdiction.
2. The deletion of Rs. 5,57,870/- on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 80E was contested.
3. The Revenue reserved the right to modify/amend or add any grounds of appeal.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, comprising Shri N.K. Billaiya, Accountant Member, and Shri Kul Bharat, Judicial Member, heard the arguments from both sides and reviewed the material available on record.
It was observed that the Revenue itself questioned the jurisdiction of its own CIT (A), which could not be disregarded lightly. Given the appeal was allowed by the first appellate authority, the assessee had no reason to challenge the jurisdiction. However, since the Revenue filed the appeal challenging the jurisdiction, the Tribunal deemed it fit to restore the impugned order back to the CIT (A) with proper jurisdiction.
The Tribunal emphasized the need for fair play and justice, thus restoring the appeal to the CIT (A) for a fresh decision after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In conclusion, the appeal filed by the Revenue was allowed for statistical purposes, with directions to the CIT (A) to re-evaluate the case. This direction applied to all 28 similar appeals filed by the Revenue.
As a result, the cross-objections filed by the Revenue were also allowed for statistical purposes, and all appeals and cross-objections were addressed similarly.
The order was pronounced in the open court on 10th November 2022, marking the culmination of a significant jurisdictional dispute in the realm of income tax assessments.
This case highlights the intricacies of jurisdictional issues within tax appeals and underscores the importance of adhering to procedural correctness in the filing and adjudication of appeals.
ITA 1224/DEL/2020 – Appeal Filed Due to Jurisdictional Dispute
Manage the increasing number of hearings effortlessly by leveraging the legal AI revolution We are India's Leading revolutionary AI-powered legal platform where you can get enough insights into top cases and judgements.
Research Platform