Het Ram Vs Assessment Unit (ITAT Delhi)
Jurisdiction Error in Form 36 Proves Fatal— Technical Lapse in Form 36 Sends Entire Litigation to Another Bench
Assessee filed four appeals-against reassessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144, penalty u/s 270A, penalty u/s 272A & penalty u/s 271B-before ITAT Delhi. At the outset, assessee submitted a written request stating that the appeals were filed in the wrong Bench due to an inadvertent error in Form 36, where the jurisdictional officer was mistakenly mentioned as an “Assessment Unit” in Delhi. Because of this incorrect mention, e-filing system automatically routed the appeals to ITAT Delhi.
Assessee clarified that his correct jurisdiction lies with ITO Ward-1, Churu (Rajasthan), which falls under the territorial jurisdiction of ITAT Jodhpur Bench. A revised Form 36 was already filed correcting the jurisdictional details. Assessee requested transfer of appeals accordingly.
Revenue confirmed that assessee’s jurisdiction indeed lies in Churu. Tribunal held that ITAT Delhi lacks jurisdiction to hear the matter. Since appeals were wrongly filed before the Delhi Bench, they cannot be adjudicated here. However, Tribunal granted liberty to the assessee to file fresh appeals before the correct jurisdictional Bench (ITAT Jodhpur) for proper adjudication.
Accordingly, all four appeals were dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
