Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an assessment order for AY 2017-18. The Revenue raised a preliminary objection, contending that the Panaji ITAT Bench lacked territorial jurisdiction because the Assessing Officer who framed the original assessment was located in Hubli, Karnataka, which falls outside the Panaji Bench's designated jurisdiction. This contention was supported by ITAT standing orders and a Supreme Court judgment.
Held
The Tribunal, relying on ITAT Rules and Supreme Court precedent, confirmed that the situs of the Assessing Officer is the decisive factor for determining the appellate forum's jurisdiction. Since the Assessing Officer was located in Hubli, outside the Panaji Bench's territorial limits as per amended standing orders, the Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeal and stay application were dismissed as not maintainable.
Key Issues
Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench, has territorial jurisdiction to entertain an appeal when the Assessing Officer who framed the assessment is located outside its designated jurisdiction.
Sections Cited
Income Tax Act, 1963: Section 253(1), Income Tax Act, 1963: Section 250, ITAT Rules, 1963: Rule 18, ITAT Rules, 1963: Rule 4(1), Income Tax Act, 1963: Section 127, ITAT Rules, 1963: Rule 34
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 : Mr Omkar Godbole [‘Ld. AR’] Revenue by : Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. DR’] Date of conclusive Hearing : 06/01/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 06/01/2025 ORDER PER GD. PADMAHSHALI; This appeal is instituted by the assessee u/s 253(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1963 [‘the Act’ hereinafter] which challenges the first appellate DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1056527162(1) dt. 26/09/2023 passed by Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. NFAC’ hereinafter] u/s 250 of the Act anent to assessment year 2017-18 [‘AY’ hereinafter].
ITAT-Panaji Page 1 of 4
Harish Ramchandra Joshi (HUF) Vs ACIT SA No. 14/PAN/2024 2. It emerges at the very outset from the Ld. DR’s submissions that; in this case the assessing officer who framed the appellant’s original assessment was the Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1) & TPS, Hubli city of Dharwad district of Karnataka State. It is contended that, the situs of the assessing officer who exercised the assessment jurisdiction over the appellant since falls outside the jurisdiction of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Benches Panaji, hence the present appeal of the assessee is not maintainable for adjudication before this bench. To drive home this contention the Ld. DR beside pressing into service the standing order of ITAT has also relied upon the judgement rendered in ‘PCIT Vs ABC Paper Ltd.’ [2022, 447 ITR 1 (SC)]. Per contra, nothing contrary was brought on record by the appellant assessee to dismantle the respondent’s former assertion and invalidate the effective standing order of the ITAT in force.
We have heard the rival submissions on jurisdiction of this bench and subject to rule 18 of ITAT Rules, 1963 perused the material placed on records and considered the former issue in the light of settled position of law.
ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 4
Harish Ramchandra Joshi (HUF) Vs ACIT SA No. 14/PAN/2024 4. We are mindful to state here that, although certain benches of the Tribunal exercise its territorial 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. Underpinning the above principle, the Hon’ble Supreme court in ‘PCIT Vs ABC Papers Ltd.’ (supra), has put the issue of jurisdiction 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.
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 amended by ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 4 of Uttara Kannada District’ of Karnataka State.
Now coming to present case, the clinching factual position that, the situs of the assessing officer who framed the original assessment in appellant’s case was Hubli city of Dharwad District of Karnataka State which admittedly falls beyond the territorial jurisdiction of Panaji Tribunal/Benches. Therefore, going by the Amended Standing Order (supra) this Bench ad-idem does not have jurisdiction to entertain the present appeal and stay application of the assessee. In view thereof, we dismiss the instant appeal and stay application in limine as ‘not- maintainable’ with a grant of leave to institute them before an appropriate bench of the Tribunal which in law exercises jurisdiction over the Ld. AO who actually framed the assessment under challenge.
In result, the appeal & the stay application are DISMISSED as above. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 these orders are pronounced in the open court on date mentioned herein before.