Ramamoorthy Srinivasan Chandilya Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai)
Assessee filed an appeal before ITAT Chennai Bench against the order of CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi. At the time of hearing, it was noticed that the jurisdictional Assessing Officer of Assessee is located in Hyderabad.
As per Rule 4 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 read with CBDT Notification No. F.No.63-AD(AT/97) dated 16.09.1997, the jurisdiction of ITAT Bench is determined by the location of AO. Therefore, since AO is in Hyderabad, the appeal should have been filed before ITAT Hyderabad Bench, not Chennai Bench.
Bench also relied on the Supreme Court judgment in PCIT Vs ABC Papers Ltd. (2022) 289 Taxmann 150 (SC), which confirmed that appeals must be filed before ITAT Bench having jurisdiction over AO’s office.
Assessee’s counsel requested either transfer of the appeal to ITAT Hyderabad or liberty to refile. Tribunal held that the present appeal is not maintainable before ITAT Chennai & dismissed it for want of jurisdiction, but granted liberty to Assessee to file a fresh appeal before ITAT Hyderabad within 3 months (along with condonation of delay petition, if required).
Appeal must be filed before ITAT Bench having jurisdiction over AO. Since AO was in Hyderabad, ITAT Chennai lacked jurisdiction & rightly dismissed the appeal, granting liberty to refile in the correct Bench.
