Loading judgment…
Facts
Assessee Vinaya Kumar filed appeals against orders passed by Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Visakhapatnam for AYs 2014-15 and 2016-17, which arose from orders under Section 143(3) read with Section 147. The Ld. DR contended that the assessee, being from Mangaluru, falls under ITAT Bengaluru's jurisdiction, and also mentioned the assessee's failure to pay tax dues under the Vivad-Se-Viswas Scheme.
Held
The Tribunal upheld the Ld. DR's contention, determining that since the assessee's domicile is Mangaluru, Karnataka, the appeals should have been filed before the ITAT, Bengaluru, regardless of where the first appellate authority was located. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction.
Key Issues
Whether the ITAT Visakhapatnam had territorial jurisdiction to hear appeals filed by an assessee residing in Mangaluru, Karnataka, when the appellate orders were passed by an authority in Visakhapatnam.
Sections Cited
143(3), 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM “DIVISION” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
Before: SHRI K NARASIMHA CHARY, HON’BLE & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE
PER S. BALAKRISHNAN, Accountant Member :
The captioned appeals are filed by the assessee against the orders of the Learned Addl/JCIT (Appeals)-1, Visakhapatnam in DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1060126554(1), dated 25/01/2024 and ITBA/APL/S/250/2023- 24/1060095135(1), dated 24/01/2024 arising out of the orders passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the AYs 2014-15 and 2016-17 respectively. Since, these
2 appeals pertain to the same assessee for different AYs, they are clubbed, heard together and disposed of in this consolidated order.
Before us, at the time of hearing of the appeals none appeared on behalf of the assessee.
The Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) submitted before us that the assessee is based in Mangaluru, Karnataka State and therefore, the assessee comes under the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble ITAT at Bengaluru. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee has wrongly / mistakenly filed these appeals before ITAT, Visakhapatnam because the faceless appeal orders were passed by the Addl./JCIT-1, Visakhapatnam. The Ld. DR further submitted that for the AYs under consideration, the assessee has opted for Vivad-Se-Viswas-Scheme (“VSVS”)-2020 however, Form No.5 was not issued by the competent authority due to the fact that the assessee’s failure in paying the dues of tax. Therefore, the Ld. DR prayed that these appeals may be dismissed.
4 We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record as well as the orders of the Ld. Revenue
3 Authorities. As submitted by the Ld. DR, the assessee ought to have filed these appeals before the ITAT, Bengaluru even though the Addl./JCIT-1, Visakhapatnam, being the first appellate authority has passed the orders, as the assessee originally belongs to Mangaluru, Karnataka State. Therefore, we find merit in the submissions of the Ld. DR and we hereby dismiss these appeals as out of jurisdiction of this Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed.
Pronounced in the open Court on 03rd January, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (�ी के नरिस�ा चारी) (एस बालाकृ�न) (K NARASIMHA CHARY) (S.BALAKRISHNAN) �ाियकसद�/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 03.01.2025 OKK - SPS 4 आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत /Copy of the order forwarded to:- िनधा�रती/ The Assessee – Vinaya Kumar, 6-19-854/16, Matadakani 1. Enclave, Matadakani Cross Road, Gandhinagar, Mangalore, Karnataka-575003. राज�/The Revenue – Add./JCIT(A), O/o. Commissioner of Income 2. Tax (Appeal), Addl JCIT (A)-1, Visakhapatnam.