ITAT jurisdiction is decided by location of AO passing the impugned order

Location of the assessing officer who passed the order shall decide the jurisdiction of the Bench of the Tribunal

In the instant case, ITAT Guwahati has held that the location of the assessing officer who passed the order shall decide the jurisdiction of the Bench of the Tribunal before which the appeal could be filed.

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
5148 (2026) (05) abacus.in ITAT

In the instant case, the Revenue had challenged the order passed by the CIT(A), Guwahati in deleting the addition on account of cash credits. The Assessing Officer had made the additions based on information contained in monthly VAT returns filed by the assessee and submissions made by the assessee. However, the CIT(A) had deleted the addition.

The Tribunal observed that the appeal was not maintainable since the assessment order was passed by the ACIT, Kolkata being the Assessing Officer (AO) stationed at Kolkata and in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court the appeal ought to have been filed before the Kolkata Bench as the jurisdiction is decided by the location of the AO who passed the assessment order. It was conveyed to the AR as well as the DR that the appeal as well as the cross objections should have been filed before the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal observed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that appeals against every decision of the Tribunal shall lie only before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order is situated.

The Tribunal held that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the location of the assessing officer who passed the order shall decide the jurisdiction of the Bench of the Tribunal before which the appeal could be filed.

As a result, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on account of lack of jurisdiction as the Guwahati Bench does not have the jurisdiction to decide the appeal when the Assessing Officer is in Kolkata.

The assessee was given liberty to file an appeal before the appropriate Bench along with an application seeking condonation of delay. 

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• FCRA specifies list of 105 purposes to be selected for which registration is applied
• Withholding tax u/s 40(a)(i) not required on cost-to-cost reimbursement made to parent company
• Temporarily blocking public access to Telegram App not disproportionate – Delhi High Court
• High Court explains the meaning of term ‘enterprise’ appearing in section 80IA
• Addition deleted as assessee was only a carrier of cash not owner who came up to own it