THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1 vs. MR. P PALANISAMY

PDF · subscribers
ITA/115/2026HC KarnatakaKAHC01048898202623 July 2026Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K.MANMADHA RAO5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that appeals against every decision of the ITAT shall lie only before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order is situated. This principle remains applicable even if the assessee's case has been transferred under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. ABC Papers Ltd. In the present case, the assessment order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore. Therefore, the Karnataka High Court does not have jurisdiction. The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty granted to file the appeal before the appropriate jurisdictional High Court.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Appellants/Revenue) against an order dated 09.02.2026 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bengaluru, in ITA No.1121/CHNY/2025, concerning Assessment Year 2018-19. The assessee, Mr. P Palanisamy, is a resident of Bengaluru. The assessment order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore. The ITAT order was passed by the ‘C’ Bench, Chennai. The Registry raised objections regarding the maintainability of the appeal before the Karnataka High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal order is appealable before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order is situated, irrespective of any transfer of the assessee's case. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. The appeal is filed by the Revenue. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that the appeal was filed before the Karnataka High Court considering the assessee's residence in Bengaluru and that the assessment took place in Coimbatore due to centralization following a search. The Revenue implicitly sought to establish jurisdiction based on the assessee's location.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 127

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 115 OF 2026 BETWEEN:

1.

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA BENGALURU-560095.

2.

THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, COIMBATORE

PRESENT ADDRESS: THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2)(1), 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560095. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAVI RAJ Y. V., ADV.)

AND:

MR. P PALANISAMY 390, P P NILAYAM 9TH MAIN, I CROSS HAL II STAGE, INDIRA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560038 PAN NO.ADSPP9150F. …RESPONDENT

Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: High Court of Karnataka HC-KAR THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260 A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ITA NO.1121/CHNY/2025 DATED.09.02.2026 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 ANNEXURE-A AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, BENGALURU.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

This appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 questioning order dated 09.02.2026 in ITA.No.1121/CHNY/2025 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ Bench, Chennai (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

2.

On scrutiny of the appeal, the Registry has raised objections with regard to maintainability of ITA before this Court.

HC-KAR

3.

Heard learned senior standing counsel Sri.Y.V.Raviraj for appellants/Revenue.

4.

Learned senior standing counsel Sri.Y.V.Raviraj submits that the present appeal was filed taking note of the fact that the assessee is at Bengaluru and further he submits that the assessment has taken place at Coimbatore, since the Centralization has taken place after consequent search.

5.

From the appeal papers, it is seen that the assessment order in respect of the respondent/assessee is passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore and the ITAT Order is passed by the ‘C’ Bench, Chennai. Therefore, the Registry has rightly raised office objections with regard to maintainability of ITA before this Court.

6.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. ABC Papers Ltd., HC-KAR [(2022) 141 taxmann.com 332 (SC)] while considering the identical situation, at paragraph 33 has held as follows: “33. In conclusion, we hold that appeals against every decision of the ITAT shall lie only before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order is situated. Even if the case or cases of an assessee are transferred in exercise of power under Section 127 of the Act, the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer has passed the order, shall continue to exercise the jurisdiction of appeal. This principles is applicable even if the transfer is under Section 127 for the same assessment year(s).”

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above decision has made it clear that appeal against every decision of the ITAT shall lie only before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order is situated.

7.

In the instant case, the assessment order is passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, HC-KAR Central Circle-3, Coimbatore. Hence, this Court would not get jurisdiction. Accordingly, appeal stands dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty to file appeal before appropriate jurisdictional High Court.

Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

Sd/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE

NC CT:bms

More judgments on Section 127

All 1,067 judgments and leading authorities on Section 127 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →