Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order, which originated from an assessment order passed by the Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Hassan (Ld. AO) for AY 2017-18. The assessee did not appear for the hearing, leading the tribunal to proceed ex-parte, focusing on the limited issue of jurisdiction.
Held
The Tribunal held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction over the appeal because the Assessing Officer, located in Hassan, Karnataka, falls outside the Panaji ITAT Bench's designated jurisdiction. Relying on Supreme Court precedent ('PCIT Vs ABC Paper Ltd.') and ITAT Rules, the Tribunal determined that the situs of the AO is the decisive factor for appellate jurisdiction. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty for the assessee to file it before the appropriate Bangalore Bench.
Key Issues
Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench, possesses the territorial jurisdiction to entertain an appeal when the Assessing Officer is situated outside its specified territorial limits, specifically in Hassan, Karnataka.
Sections Cited
Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, Section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, Rule 24 of ITAT-Rules, 1963, Rule 4 of ITAT-Rules, Rule 18 of ITAT-Rules, Rule 4(1) of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, Section 127 of the Act, Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI
ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI; This appeal of the assessee impugns order dt. 23/12/2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals-2, Panaji [‘CIT(A)’ hereinafter] u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’ hereinafter] which in turn arisen out of order of assessment dt. 29/09/2021 passed u/s 153C r.w.s. 144 of the Act by the Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Hassan [‘Ld. AO’ hereinafter] in relation to assessment year 2017-18 [‘AYs’ hereinafter].
The case was called twice; none appeared at the behest of the appellant, having regard to limited issue involved herein, we proceeded ex- parte in the absence of appellant u/r 24 of ITAT-Rules, 1963. ITAT-Panaji Page 1 of 4
Thaqwa Promoters Vs ACIT, Hassan AY:2017-18 3. The conjoint consideration of material placed on records and submissions of Ld. DR reveals that; the assessing officer who holds the territorial jurisdictional over the assessee was ACIT, Central Circle, Hassan District of Karnataka. Therefore, it was averred by the Revenue that, the situs of the Ld. AO who exercises territorial jurisdiction over the assessee falls outside the territorial jurisdiction of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [‘ITAT’ hereafter], Panaji Benches Panaji. Reiterating the text from standing order of ITAT issued in the year 2002 and binding precedence laid in ‘PCIT Vs ABC Paper Ltd.’ [2022, 447 ITR 1 (SC)] the Ld. DR further asserted that, in view of the rule 4 of ITAT-Rules this bench is not even empowered to transfer this appeal to the respective bench of ITAT. In view thereof this appeal of the appellant assessee de-facto deserves to be dismissed in limine on the ground of jurisdiction.
Heard the Ld. DR and subject to rule 18 (supra) perused the material placed on records. We note that an identical issue came for a consideration in ‘DCIT Vs M/s Kushal Stone Crushers & M Sand Plant’ (ITA No 150/PAN/2023 dt. 26/11/2024) wherein the situs of the assessing officer who framed the assessment was Mangaluru District of State of Karnataka therefore the Co-ordinate bench on the ground of jurisdiction vide para 5-7 has dismissed the appeal of the Revenue in limine as not-maintainable as; ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 4
Thaqwa Promoters Vs ACIT, Hassan AY:2017-18
“5. We are mindful to state here that, although certain benches of the Tribunal exercise its jurisdiction over more than one state, however the explanation 4 to Standing Order dt. 01/10/1997 issued under rule 4(1) of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 categorically prescribes that; the ordinary jurisdiction of the Tribunal should be based on the location of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Reinforcing the above principle, the Hon’ble Supreme court by its judgement in ‘PCIT Vs ABC Papers Ltd.’ (supra), has put the issue of jurisdiction of appellate forum to rest by holding that, the ‘situs of the assessing officer’ is the only decisive key factor for determining the jurisdiction of appellate forum irrespective of any administrative order passed u/s 127 of the Act in relation to transfer of cases.
6. In aforestated context we note that, the Hon’ble President of ITAT by an order dt. 19/10/2001 amended the territorial jurisdiction of this ITAT Panaji Benches, Panaji (Goa) by confining it to (a) The State of Goa comprising two districts viz; North Goa & South Goa (b) Belgaum alias Belgavi District of Karnataka State (c) Mangalore, Karwar and Uttara Kannada District of Karnataka State. Subsequently vide order dt. 04/10/2002 the jurisdiction of this ITAT Panaji Bench, Panaji further limited by amendment to (a) State of Goa (b) Belgaum District and ‘Karwar Taluka of Uttara Kannada District’ of Karnataka State.
The clinching factual position that situs of the assessing officer who framed the assessment under challenge being Mangaluru which falls beyond the territorial jurisdiction of Panaji Tribunal/Benches, therefore this Bench of the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to entertain the instant appeal, going by the Standing Order (supra). As per the foregoing notification, the Tribunal's Bangalore Benches, Bangalore is vested with the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the appellant's instant appeal. In view thereof, without offering our comments we dismiss the present appeal as ‘not- maintainable’ with a grant of leave to institute it before an appropriate bench of the Tribunal which in law exercises the jurisdiction over the Ld. AO who framed the impugned assessment dt. 08/03/2021.” (Emphasis supplied)
ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 4
Thaqwa Promoters Vs ACIT, Hassan AY:2017-18
A similar adjudication can also be traced in ‘Manjunath Vishnusa Habib Vs ACIT’ (ITA No 080/PAN/2024), ‘Monappa S Shetty Vs ITO’ (ITA No 168/PAN/2023), ‘DCIT Vs M/s Kushal Stone Crushers & M Sand Plant’ (ITA No 150/PAN/2023).
In the absence of anything contrary brought to our notice necessitating departure from maintaining parity with the aforestated adjudication (supra), without offering our comments we dismiss the present appeal of the assessee in limine as ‘not-maintainable’ with a grant of leave to institute it (accompany therewith challans of appeal fees already paid), before an appropriate bench of the Tribunal which in law exercises the jurisdiction over the assessing officer who had the territorial jurisdiction over the appellant assessee for the year under consideration.
7. The appeal in result stands DISMISSED as above. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 the order pronounced in the open court on date mentioned herein before.