CPC should not be a party in case appeal against order of CIT(A) even if intimation or order is passed by CPC. JAO should be party.

CPC as a party in a LIS for or against income tax department.

On search on this website we find results as follows on 21.06.2026 at around 22.30 hours:

Showing Results for : Law: Income Tax Party Name: CPC

1007 Results . This means that CPC has been mentioned as a party to LIS in 1007 cases. This is not exhaustive because many cases are not reported on this website.

In some cases we find that only CPC is mentioned as a party ( appellant or respondent as the case may be)

In many cases CPC is mentioned as a party to LIS besides other authorities of department.

Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) is affected party:

CPC is not a party to LIS Only JAO can be a party:

From any order of CIT(A), basically the JAO and the assessee are affected parties.

CPC or face less AO (FAO) are not affected party. Because CPC and FAO are working under relevant schemes and can be considered as acting on behalf of JAO. Tax collected from assessee in jurisdiction of any JAO goes in the account or to the credit of JAO and not to the CPC or FAO.

CPC and FAO like agent of JAO who is principal at initial level of hierchy.

It is true that the dispute originally arises from a technical intimation generated by the CPC, tax file of assessee is ultimately mapped to JAO . Legally and procedurally, the CPC acts as an automated processing unit on behalf of the Income Tax Department, while the official legal representative of the Revenue before the tribunal is the Assessing Officer holding jurisdiction over assessee.

Appellant and Respondent:

Party seeking relief is Appellant or Applicant and other party is respondent or opposite party.

In first appeal before CIT(A) the assessee is applicant or appellant. The JAO is considered as opposite party or respondent.

In second appeal before ITAT any one or both of them can be appellant if disputes are raised before ITAT.

On some issues on which CIT(A) allowed relief the department can file appeal before ITAT in that case JAO will be appellant and assessee will be respondent.

On some issues on which CIT(A) did not allow relief or made addition the assessee will be appellant and JAO will be respondent.

It is principally wrong to make CPC a party of nature of appellant in case of appeal by department Because CPC is not an affected party and is not signing the appeal memo. The appeal will be filed by JAO.

It is also wrong to mention CPC as respondent in an appeal filed by assessee. CPC can be added as second party because CPC passed an order and that order is required to be modified through appeal.

As per ITAT Rules also JAO will be respondent in case of appeal filed by assessee and JAO will be appellant in case of appeal filed by department, even if original order is passed by CPC or FAO.

Therefore, only JAO should be a respondent in case of appeal filed by assessee.

Wrongly made appeals can be modified:

In case any appeal has been filed before ITAT against order of CIT(A) mentioning CPC as respondent, it is desirable that defect be cured by filing revised Form 36 mentioning JAO as the respondent.

Similarly if department has filed any appeal or Miscellaneous Application before ITAT mentioning CPC as appellant or applicant, it deserves to be modified.

An appeal or application filed mentioning CPC as appellant or applicant can be rejected as not maintainable in such form. Assessee as respondent or opposite party can raise objection in this regard. He can point out that CPC is not affected party, appeal or application is not signed by CPC but it is signed by JAO.

Appeal and Miscellaneous application by Department:

Suppose appeal against order of CIT(A) was filed by department mentioning CPC as appellant.

Or suppose original appeal was filed by assessee against order of CIT(A) or CIT in connection with CPC intimation. The Tribunal allowed relief. Now department want to contest it by way of miscellaneous Application (MA). In the MA and notice issued by ITAT, CPC is mentioned as applicant or appellant, assessee can validly raise a dispute that the appeal or application is not maintainable with CPC as appellant or applicant.

Similar will be case if an appeal by department is filed before High Court, against order of ITAT and CPC is mentioned as appellant.

It can be elaborated that CPC is a non-juridical processing arm of the Income Tax Department and cannot be considered an aggrieved party to the LIS in appeals before Tribunal (and even in case of appeal before High court) .

The CPC acts strictly as an automated execution agent, it has no legal locus standi to file the appeal or application. The only competent applicant or appellant is the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO).

The discussion made in this article can also be applicable in cases under other circumstances where there are different roles and authorities or agency to carry some work for a department. Therefore, this article is placed i=under category 'other topics'.