Case Law Details
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.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT CHENNAI
The captioned appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/NFAC, Delhi [‘CIT(A)’ in short] dated 18.06.2025 for Assessment Year 2015-16.
2. When this appeal was taken up for hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the jurisdiction of the case lies with Assessing Officer at Hyderabad. As per Rule 4 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 read with paragraph 4 of Notification No.FNo.63-AD(AT/97), dated 16th September, 1997 as amended from time to time, the ordinary jurisdiction of the Bench of the Tribunal to decide an appeal is to be determined by the location of the office of the A.O. Therefore, the assessee was called upon to make submission on the maintainability of the appeal.
3. In response, the Ld. A.R submitted that the appeal may be transferred to ITAT, Hyderabad Benches, Hyderabad and in case the Hon’ble Bench is of opinion that it is not a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction for transfer of his appeal then, one opportunity may be granted to re-file the appeal for condoning the delay.
4. We find that the assessee’s jurisdictional Assessing Officer is located at Hyderabad. In terms of Rule 4 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, read with Notification No.F.No.63-AD(AT/97), dated 16.09.1997, the jurisdiction of the Bench is determined by the location of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the appeals ought to have been filed before the ITAT, Hyderabad Bench and not before the ITAT, Chennai Bench. This rule is in consonance with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in PCIT vs. ABC Papers Ltd. [2022] 289 Taxmann 150 (SC). In view of the above, the present appeal filed before the ITAT, Chennai Bench are held to be not maintainable and are dismissed for want of jurisdiction. However, 3 months liberty is granted to the assessee to file fresh appeal before the ITAT from the receipt of this order, Hyderabad Bench along with a petition for condonation of delay, if any. With the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 16th day of September, 2025 at Chennai.
Author Bio
