| Question And Answer | |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Jurisdiction for filling an appeal before ITAT |
| Category: | Income-Tax |
| Querist: | Prerna bora |
| Answered by: | Dr .K. Shivaram Senior Advocate |
| Tags: | ITAT, jurisdiction for filing appeal |
| Date: | March 16, 2022 |
Assessee is partnership firm. Assessment was completed by the Addl. CIT, Mumbai. Assessee has filed an appeal before CIT A Mumbai, who has decided an appeal and deleted some addition and on some issues partly allowed an appeal . Assessee has filed an appeal against the said order of CIT A , before the ITAT Mumbai. Meanwhile assessee has shifted his office to Pune . Department has filed an appeal against the order of the CIT A on the issues where CIT has given full relief as well as part relief before the ITAT pune as the now filed is transfer to Pune.
From the 2012, assessee has made request to President of ITAt for transfer of CASE from ITAT Mumbai to ITAT Pune since there are cross appeal. However said application before President is still pending. On enquiry , it is told that same is pending due to decision of Mumbai HC in the case of MSPL 127 Taxmann.com 379.
Appeal of the department file before Pune ITAT has been fixed since it is old appeal, and Bench is not accepting the request for Keeping in abeyance the hearing till the decision of Presindent on request of transfer of assesee,s appeal to Pune from Mumbai.
Can assessee take the stand that since original AO is from Mumbai the department should also filed an appeal at Mumbai . Pl guide
In CIT v. MD Wadar and Co ( 2020) 429 ITR 451 ( Bom)(HC) , the Assessing Officer Belgaum reopened the assessment . The CIT (A) Bangalore has decided the appeal and the Panaji Bench of the Tribunal decided the matter . The Revenue has filed an appeal before Bombay High Court . Dismissing the appeal the Court held that the Bombay High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal . High Court relied on Ambica Industries v. CCE AIR 2007 SC /(2009) 20 VST 1 (SC). In Mulbery Silks Ltd v. Settlement Commission ( 2020) 428 ITR 136 ( Mad) ( HC) has held that order of Settlement Commission was passed by Chennai Bench and the writ was filed before Madras High court . High Court held that the as the assessment order was passed by the Assessing officer Bangalore , the Madras High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition . The Karnataka High Court has the jurisdiction .
Applying the ratio of above referred decisions the assessee can request the Honourable President / Vice -President to transfer the case to Mumbai Bench .