VALAKA ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 20, NEW DELHI

I.T.A. No.567/Kol/2024
Assessment Year: 2012-13
Valaka Engineering Pvt. Ltd

“Power of Bench.
4.(1) A Bench shall hear and determine such appeals and applications made under the Act as the President may by general or special order direct.
(2) Where there are two or more Benches of the Tribunal working at any headquarters, the President or, in his absence, the Senior Vice-
President/Vice-President of the concerned zone or, in his absence, the seniormost member of the station present at the headquarters may transfer an appeal or an application from anyone of such Benches to any other."
41. From an analysis of rule 4 as extracted above, we find that as per sub rule
(1), a Bench shall hear and determine such appeals and applications made under the Act as the President may by general or special order direct. Sub rule
(2) says that where there are two or more Benches of the Tribunal working at any headquarters, the President or, in absence, the senior Vice President or Vice
President of the concerned zone or in his absence the seniormost member of the station present at the headquarters may transfer an appeal or an application from any one of such Benches to any other. While sub rule (1) empowers the President to direct hearing of appeals by a Bench by a general or special order, sub rule (2) is more specific. It deals with a situation where there are more than two Benches of the Tribunal at any headquarter; when there are multiple
Benches in a headquarter, the President or, in his absence the senior Vice
President etc. may transfer an appeal or an application from one of such Benches to any other. Meaning thereby that it is a transfer of an appeal or an application from one Bench to another Bench within the same headquarters. For example, in Mumbai the number of Benches is twelve and in Bangalore, the number of Benches is three. Thus, this provision can be invoked to transfer an appeal from one Bench in Mumbai to another Bench in Mumbai or from one
Bench in Bangalore to another Bench in Bangalore. But this provision cannot be invoked to transfer a pending appeal from one Bench under one, headquarter to another Bench in a different headquarter.
42. While on the Tribunal Rules, we may also refer to rules 13 and 28. Who may be joined as respondent in an appeal by the assessee is dealt with in rule
13. In an appeal by an assessee under sub-section (1) of section 253, the concerned Assessing Officer shall be made a respondent to the appeal.
Concerned Assessing Officer would mean the Assessing Officer who had passed the assessment order from which the appeal to the Tribunal arises. As per rule 28, Tribunal has the power to remand an appeal to the authority from whose order the appeal has been preferred or to the concerned Assessing
Officer with such directions as the Tribunal may think fit.
43. Standing Order has, been made in pursuance of sub rule (1) of rule 4 of the Tribunal Rules. Standing Order provides for hearing of appeals and applications by different Benches of the Tribunal. In other words, it provides for the territorial juri iction of the different Benches. It is seen therefrom that the three Benches of the Tribunal at Bangalore have juri iction over the entire State of Karnataka, excluding the districts of Belgaum, Mangalore, Karwar and North
Kanara over which the Panaji Bench has juri iction. In so far the Benches at I.T.A. No.567/Kol/2024
Assessment Year: 2012-13
Valaka Engineering Pvt. Ltd

6
Mumbai are concerned, those have juri iction over Mumbai City, Mumbai
Suburban and Thane Districts of Maharashtra. Clause 4 is interesting and it says that the ordinary juri iction 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.”
5. Considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ABC Ltd. (supra) as well as the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of MSPL Ltd. (supra), we find that the present appeal by the assessee is under improper juri iction, owing to the fact that impugned penalty order dated 15.03.2022, is passed by Central
Circle-20, New Delhi. Accordingly, this present appeal is dismissed with the liberty to the assessee to file a fresh appeal before the appropriate bench of the Tribunal having juri iction over the assessee along with petition for condonation of delay caused on this account.
6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as indicated above.
Kolkata, the 5th May, 2025. [Sanjay Awasthi]

[Sonjoy Sarma]
Accountant Member

Judicial Member

Dated: 05.05.2025. RS

Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. Valaka Engineering Pvt. Ltd
2. ACIT, Circle-20, Delhi
3.CIT (A)-
4. CIT- ,

////
By order