Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue (Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sirsi) filed an appeal against an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 12/02/2024, which stemmed from an assessment order dated 31/12/2019 under Section 143(3) for Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessing Officer who framed the assessment for the respondent (Gajanan Rama Palankar) is located in Sirsi, Uttara Kannada District, Karnataka.
Held
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench, dismissed the Revenue's appeal as 'not-maintainable', citing lack of territorial jurisdiction. The Tribunal relied on its own Rules, Standing Orders, and a Supreme Court judgment, determining that the 'situs of the assessing officer' is the decisive factor. As the AO is located in Sirsi, which falls outside the Panaji Bench's territorial limits, the appeal should be entertained by the Bangalore Bench.
Key Issues
Whether the Panaji Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal possesses the territorial jurisdiction to entertain an appeal when the Assessing Officer who passed the original assessment order is situated outside its designated geographical purview.
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
Appearances Assessee by : None for the assessee Revenue by : Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. DR’] Date of conclusive Hearing : 05/02/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 05/02/2025 ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM; The present appeal of the Revenue instituted challenging DIN & Order No ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060786533(1) dt. 12/02/2024 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 ascended out of assessment order dt. 31/12/2019 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sirsi [‘Ld. AO’ hereinafter] anent to assessment year 2017-18 [‘AY’ hereinafter] ITAT-Panaji Page 1 of 4
ITO Vs Gajanan Rama Palankar, Sirsi AY 2017-18 2. The case was called twice; none appeared at the behest of respondent assessee, after a mindful consideration of limited issue involved, we deem it fit to proceed in the absence of respondent ex-parte u/r 25 of ITAT-Rules, 1963 and adjudicate the same with the able assistance from Ld. DR Mr Reddy. Recording the same, we advanced accordingly.
It emerges at the very outset from the records that; the assessing officer who framed the respondent’s assessment was Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sirsi, Uttara Kannada district of Karnataka State. It is also brought to our notice by the Revenue that, the situs of the assessing officer who exercised the assessment jurisdiction over the assessee falls outside the jurisdiction of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Benches Panaji. The present appeal of the Revenue is therefore requested for transfer to respective bench. To solidify the legal position in relation to jurisdiction, the Ld. DR candidly assisted by taking us through the standing order of ITAT issued in the year 1971 and also the recent judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in ‘PCIT Vs ABC Paper Ltd.’ [2022, 447 ITR 1 (SC)].
We have heard the submissions on jurisdiction of this bench and subject to rule 18 of ITAT Rules, 1963 perused the material placed on records and considered the issue in the light of settled position of law which was also forewarned to the Revenue. ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 4
ITO Vs Gajanan Rama Palankar, Sirsi 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.
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 only ‘Karwar Taluka of Uttara Kannada District’ of Karnataka State.
ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 4
ITO Vs Gajanan Rama Palankar, Sirsi AY 2017-18
The clinching factual position that situs of the assessing officer who framed the assessment of respondent under challenge was being Sirsi, Uttara Kannada District of Karnataka which admittedly falls beyond the territorial jurisdiction of Panaji Tribunal/Benches, therefore this Bench of the Tribunal per-se does not have jurisdiction to entertain the instant appeal of the Revenue, going by the Standing Order issued in 2002 (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 any comments, we dismiss the present appeal of the Revenue 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 assessment dt. 31/12/2019.
In result, the appeal of the Revenue is DISMISSED as above. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 the order pronounced in the open court on date mentioned herein before.
-S/d- -S/d- PAVAN KUMAR GADALE G. D. PADMAHSHALI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Panaji/Dt: 05th February, 2025. Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. 1. The Appellant.
2. The Respondent.