Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against an order from the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) for AY 2016-17, arising from an assessment under Section 143(3). The appellant did not appear, leading to ex-parte proceedings. The Ld. DR argued that the Assessing Officer's situs (Udupi, Karnataka) falls outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Panaji ITAT, hence the appeal should be dismissed.
Held
The Tribunal, relying on various precedents, held that the situs of the Assessing Officer is the decisive factor for determining the appellate forum's jurisdiction. As the AO's situs was outside the Panaji ITAT's territorial limits, the bench lacked jurisdiction. The appeal was dismissed as 'not-maintainable', with liberty granted to the assessee to file it before the appropriate bench.
Key Issues
The key legal issue was whether the Panaji ITAT had territorial jurisdiction to hear the appeal, given that the situs of the Assessing Officer was located outside its defined geographical limits as per ITAT Rules and precedents.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 127
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
Assessment Year : 2016-17 Ala Samudra Meenugarara Prathamika Seva Sahakari Sanghan Malpe 1st Floor, Federation Building, Malpe, Udupi-576106 PAN : AABAA4296L . . . . . . . Appellant V/s Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & TPS, Udupi. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee by : None for the assessee Revenue by : Mr S Manikandan [‘Ld. DR’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusive Hearing : 05/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 06/03/2025 ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI; This appeal of the assessee impugns order dt. 14/05/2024 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. NFAC’ hereinafter] u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’ hereinafter] which in turn arisen out of order of assessment dt. 17/03/2022 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act by National Faceless e-Assessment Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. NFeAC’ hereinafter] in relation to assessment year 2016-17 [‘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
Ala Samudra Meenugarara Prathamika Seva Sahakari Sanghan Malpe Vs ITO, Udupi AY:2016-17 3. The conjoint consideration of records and submissions of Ld. DR reveals that; although the original assessment in the case was framed in faceless regime, the assessing officer who holds the territorial jurisdictional for passing order giving effect is indeed the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & TPS, Udupi District of Karnataka [‘Ld. AO’ hereafter]. The Ld. DR therefore submitted 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 averred that, in view of the rule 4 of ITAT-Rules this bench is not even entitled to transfer this appeal, therefore this appeal 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. 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
“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.
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
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.
6. 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.