This article provides an in-depth analysis of the case identified as ITA No. 1337/DEL/2020, involving the appellant, Income Tax Officer (ITO) Ward – 2(1), Ghaziabad, and the respondent, Yogendra Kumar, also from Ghaziabad. The case pertains to the assessment year 2010-11 and was filed on June 30, 2020. The final order was pronounced on October 11, 2022.
The dispute centers around an assessment order passed on October 31, 2017, by the Assessing Officer (AO), ITO Ward – 2(1), Ghaziabad. Dissatisfied with the assessment, Yogendra Kumar appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Noida [CIT(A)], who dismissed the appeal. The Revenue then challenged the CIT(A)’s order based on the argument of territorial jurisdiction.
The Revenue’s appeal raised significant concerns regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the CIT(A) who issued the impugned order. The core issue revolved around whether the CIT(A) Noida had the authority to pass the order concerning Yogendra Kumar’s assessment.
The primary contention of the Revenue was that the CIT(A) Noida did not possess the territorial jurisdiction over this matter at the time the order was passed. This procedural irregularity formed the crux of the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).
The case was heard by Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member, and Sh. Yogesh Kumar US, Judicial Member, at the Delhi Bench ‘H’ of the ITAT. The Department was represented by Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT. No one appeared on behalf of the respondent, Yogendra Kumar.
It was noted that the notices sent to the registered address of the respondent were returned unserved. Despite this, the Tribunal proceeded with the hearing based on the grounds of appeal and the material on record.
The Department Representative (DR) highlighted that the CIT(A) who issued the order lacked jurisdiction over the case, according to the territorial requirements. This procedural issue was significant enough to necessitate a reassessment by the appropriate CIT(A) with proper jurisdiction.
Without commenting on the merits of the case, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A), Ghaziabad, for de novo adjudication. This decision aimed to ensure that the case is heard by the correct jurisdictional authority, maintaining the procedural integrity of the assessment process.
The final order stated:
“The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. The matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A), Ghaziabad, for the purpose of de novo adjudication.”
This case underscores the importance of maintaining procedural correctness and jurisdictional accuracy in tax assessments and appeals. It highlights the necessity for tax authorities to ensure that the correct jurisdictional authorities handle assessments and appeals to avoid unnecessary procedural disputes.
ITO Ward – 2(1), Ghaziabad vs. Yogendra Kumar: Jurisdictional Challenge
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