Territorial jurisdiction of ITAT is determined on the basis of situs of Assessing Officer

Jurisdiction of ITAT is determined not by the place of business or residence of assessee but by the location of the AO – ITAT

In a recent judgment, Agra ITAT has dismissed the appeal of the assessee observing that the ordinary jurisdiction of the Bench will be determined not by the place of business or residence of the assessee but by the location of the office of the Assessing Officer.

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
4960 (2025) (12) abcaus.in ITAT

In the instant case, the assessee had challenged the order passed by the CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal against assessment order passed by the AO.

At the time of hearing, it was brought to the notice of the Bench that the appeal had wrongly been filed with ITAT, Agra Bench, whereas the territorial jurisdiction to file this appeal lied with ITAT, Delhi as the Assessing Officer was located at Ghaziabad while passing the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act.

The Tribunal observed that as per Rule 4 of the standing order under Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, the ordinary jurisdiction of the Bench will be determined not by the place of business or residence of the assessee but by the location of the office of the Assessing Officer.

The Bench further observed that Hon’ble Supreme Court has reinforced this principle by holding that the territorial jurisdiction is determined on the basis of the situs of the Assessing Officer.

Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the present appeal with liberty to the assessee, if so advised, to file the same in ITAT, New Delhi. 

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• Compensation to borrower upheld as bank did not verify construction progress before loan disbursals to builder
• No timeline mentioned in PMLA to forward arrest order & material in possession to Adjudicating Authority
• Release of seized assets if mandatory on completion of 120 days? Question referred to Larger Bench
• EPFO Extends date of filing of new ECR for the wage month September to 31/10/2026
• Earlier acceptance is relevant evidence in evaluating subsequent allegation of fictitious investment