TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 821X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... djudicate upon the lis over an order passed by the Assessing Officer at New Delhi. Consequently, the appeal is returned to the Revenue for filing before the competent Court of jurisdiction in accordance with law.” In view of the above, present appeal is dismissed as this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the lis over an order passed by the Assessing Officer at New Delhi. Consequently, the appeal is returned to the revenue for filing before the competent court of jurisdiction in accordance with law. - ITA No. 274 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 28-8-2017 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MR. AMIT RAWAL, JJ. For The Appellant-Revenue : Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Tushar Gera, Advocate ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thereof? ( v) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in hand once the claim made under Section 43B was ex-facie bogus, the view point of ITAT in deleting the penalty on this count is proper or not? ( vi) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in hand the view point of the ITAT taken in impugned order is neither sustainable in the eyes of law nor maintainable in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and is not perverse in nature? ( vii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in hand the view point of the ITAT while passing the impugned order is not non-speaking in nature? 2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Apex Court in CIT Ahmedabad Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Private Limited (2010) 322 ITR 158. Hence, the instant appeal by the appellant-revenue. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-revenue. 4. The issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is that when the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order and the penalty order was based at New Delhi and the first appeal was adjudicated by the CIT(A), New Delhi and the second appeal by the Tribunal at New Delhi, whether the appeal under Section 260A of the Act before this Court would be maintainable. 5. The matter is no longer res integra. This Court in Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Gurgaon Vs. M/s Parabolic Drugs Limited, ITA No.49 of 2012 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
