The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, has dismissed an appeal for lack of territorial jurisdiction, reaffirming that the situs of the Assessing Officer - not the assessee’s location or the bench’s convenience - determines the proper forum for filing appeals under the Income-tax Act. This ruling reinforces a critical jurisdictional principle with wide implications for taxpayers and practitioners navigating the appellate structure.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appeal arises from an order passed under Section 271C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, imposing a penalty for failure to deduct tax at source (TDS) by the assessee, M/s. Double Tree by Hilton, a hotel operating in Agra. The penalty proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer based in Agra, and the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (CIT(A)/NFAC) was issued from Delhi on 25.08.2025. The assessee filed its appeal before the Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 06.04.2026, which was eight days beyond the statutory limitation period.
Key Facts
- The assessee, M/s. Double Tree by Hilton, operates a hotel in Agra, Uttar Pradesh
- PAN: AAGCA0331B
- The Assessing Officer (AO) exercising jurisdiction over the assessee is located in Agra
- The penalty order under Section 271C was passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, on 25.08.2025
- The appeal was filed before the ITAT Delhi Bench on 06.04.2026
- The statutory limitation period for filing appeals under Section 253 of the Act is 60 days from the date of the order
- The appeal was filed 8 days late
Procedural History
- 25.08.2025: CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, passed the order imposing penalty under Section 271C
- 06.04.2026: Appeal filed before ITAT Delhi Bench (8 days beyond limitation)
- 30.04.2026: Hearing held; no representative appeared for the assessee
- 30.04.2026: Tribunal pronounced order dismissing appeal on jurisdictional grounds
The Parties' Positions
The assessee did not appear before the Tribunal, either in person or through counsel, despite the appeal being called twice. No written submissions or arguments were filed on behalf of the appellant.
The Revenue, represented by Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR, did not contest the jurisdictional issue but relied on the Tribunal’s standing order and binding precedent.
Relief Sought
The assessee sought deletion of the penalty imposed under Section 271C. No specific relief beyond this was articulated in the appeal memorandum, as no written submissions were filed.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has territorial jurisdiction to hear an appeal arising from an assessment framed by an Assessing Officer situated in Agra, Uttar Pradesh.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
No arguments were presented by the appellant, as no representative appeared before the Tribunal despite two calls. The appeal was filed ex parte.
For the Respondent
The Revenue did not dispute the jurisdictional defect but relied on the Tribunal’s established jurisprudence and the Supreme Court’s decision in PCIT v. ABC Papers Ltd. (2022) 447 ITR 1 (SC), affirming that jurisdiction is determined solely by the situs of the Assessing Officer.
The Court's Analysis
The Tribunal began by noting the absence of the appellant and proceeded ex parte. It then turned to the foundational issue of jurisdiction, observing that the Assessing Officer who framed the assessment and imposed the penalty was located in Agra, Uttar Pradesh.
"It is only the 'situs' of the Assessing Officer framing assessment which forms the decisive factor for the purpose of determining territorial jurisdiction."
The Tribunal cited its own Standing Order under the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, effective from 01.11.1997, which explicitly links jurisdiction to the location of the Assessing Officer. It further held that the Supreme Court’s decision in PCIT v. ABC Papers Ltd. (2022) 447 ITR 1 (SC) settles this issue conclusively and applies mutatis mutandis.
The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee’s physical presence, business operations, or the location of the CIT(A)/NFAC are irrelevant. Only the location of the AO who passed the original order determines the competent appellate bench.
The delay of eight days in filing the appeal was condoned under the principle laid down in Collector, Land & Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), recognizing the larger interest of justice. However, the Tribunal clarified that condonation of delay does not cure a jurisdictional defect.
The Verdict
The appeal was dismissed on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The Tribunal held that the Delhi Bench has no authority to adjudicate an appeal arising from an Assessing Officer situated in Agra. The assessee is at liberty to file a fresh appeal before the appropriate bench - presumably the ITAT Bench having jurisdiction over Agra - with the delay already condoned. No penalty or costs were imposed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Jurisdiction Is Determined by AO’s Location, Not the Assessee’s
- Practitioners must verify the location of the Assessing Officer before filing any appeal before ITAT
- Filing before the wrong bench - even if geographically convenient - will result in dismissal, regardless of merits
- The situs of the AO is the sole jurisdictional trigger under Section 253 of the Act
Delay Condonation Does Not Cure Jurisdictional Defects
- Courts may condone delay in filing, but cannot confer jurisdiction where none exists
- A dismissed appeal on jurisdictional grounds is not a decision on merits; a fresh appeal is permissible
- Practitioners should file appeals in the correct bench even if time-barred, and seek condonation separately
Procedural Vigilance Is Non-Negotiable
- Always confirm the AO’s jurisdictional office address from the notice of assessment or penalty order
- Cross-check with the ITAT’s jurisdictional map available on its website
- Never assume that the National Faceless Appeal Centre’s location determines the appellate forum
