TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1058X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal had the territorial jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The orders dated 29.12.2011 and 28.10.2015 (Annexures A-1 and A-2) passed by the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal are, thus, set aside and the matter is sent to the Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh. The questions claimed are answered accordingly. - ITA No.232 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 25-10-2018 - MR AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MR AVNEESH JHINGAN, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. Denesh Goyal, Senior Standing Counsel For The Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sachin Bhardwaj, Advocate ORDER AVNEESH JHINGAN, J. The revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT) vide order dated 28.06.2011 rejected the application. The said order was assailed by the assessee in appeal before the Tribunal at Chandigarh. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee-society vide order dated 29.12.2011 and the CIT was directed to grant registration. In pursuance to the order of the Tribunal, registration was granted under Section 12AA of the Act on 09.02.2012. At that stage, it was realised that the assesseesociety was situated at Moga and the territorial jurisdiction would be that of Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal instead of Chandigarh Bench. 4. The revenue moved a miscellaneous application stating that the order passed by the Chandigarh Bench Tribunal is without jurisdiction as the case falls within the ter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceptance. 9. It could be disputed by learned counsel for the respondent/assessee that Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal did not possess jurisdiction to hear the appeal as the assessee-society was situated at Moga. At this stage, the territorial jurisdiction of Chandigarh Bench and Amritsar Bench of Tribunal are reproduced below:- Chandigarh Benches :- Punjab (excluding the Districts of Amritsar, Bhatinda, Faridkot, Firozpur, Gurdaspur, Hoshiarpur, Jalandhar and Kapurthala). Haryana (excluding the Districts of Bhiwani, Faridabad, Gurgaon, Hissar, Jhajjar, Karnal, Mohindergarh, Panipat, Rewari, Rohtak and Sonepat). Himachal Pradesh. Union Territory of Chandigarh. Amritsar Bench :- Districts of Amritsar, Bhatinda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tself is an error apparent from record. The same cannot be ignored merely on the ground that the issue of jurisdiction was not raised at the time of hearing of the appeal. 14. The contention of learned counsel for the assessee that the order of the Tribunal has not been challenged on merits and the same is sustainable in law does not enhance the case of the assessee. If the Tribunal lacks territorial jurisdiction, the order passed is nullity being without jurisdiction. The decision being right or wrong would not affect the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The Supreme Court in the case of Pandurang's case (supra) held as under :- When a matter required to be decided by a Division Bench of the High Court is decided by a learned S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee on Apex Metchem's case (supra) is misplaced. The Rajasthan High Court therein was dealing with a case where the order of the Tribunal under Section 254(1) of the Act was recalled on the basis of the order passed by the President of the Mumbai Tribunal in exercise of power under Rule 4 of ITAT Rules 1963 transferring appeals filed by the appellant from Jaipur to Mumbai Bench. It was noticed that the said order was not available on record, consolidating the appeal being heard at Mumbai Bench. In the absence thereof, it was held that there was no mistake apparent on the record. 17. The said case is not applicable in the facts of the present case. Here, there is no dispute that Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal had the terri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
