SANGEETA KURIAKOS,TALEIGAO vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC, DELHI
Facts
The assessee challenged an ex-parte assessment order for AY 2015-16. The assessee's counsel argued that the territorial jurisdiction for the appeal lies with the ITAT Mumbai Bench, as the Assessing Officer (AO) is in Mumbai, not Panaji. The Revenue contended that the Panaji Bench lacked the power to transfer the appeal.
Held
The ITAT Panaji Bench dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, citing that the situs of the AO (Mumbai) falls outside its territorial jurisdiction. It granted leave to the assessee to file the appeal before the appropriate ITAT bench in Mumbai.
Key Issues
The primary legal issue was determining the correct territorial jurisdiction of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for an appeal, specifically whether the Panaji Bench could hear an appeal where the Assessing Officer was located in Mumbai.
Sections Cited
Section 147, Section 144, Section 250, Section 127
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PANAJI BENCH, GOA
Before: HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, GOA BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 488/PAN/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Sangeeta Kuriakos Agva Seaface Basement Lane No. 3, Street No.-2, Nr Manipal Hospital, Nagalli Hills, Taleigao, Goa-403004 PAN : ADIPK9092M . . . . . . . Appellant V/s Income Tax Officer/CPC, Mum-C(197)(1), Mumbai . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee by : Mr D. E. Robinson [‘Ld. AR’] Revenue by : Mr Sanket Deshmukh [‘Ld. DR’] Date of conclusive Hearing : 16/03/2026 Date of Pronouncement : 16/03/2026
ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI; This appeal challenged DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/250/2025- 26/1082170484(1) dt. 30/10/2025 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. NFAC’ hereinafter] u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’ hereinafter] which emanated from an ex-parte order of assessment dt. 05/03/2024 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act by the National Faceless e-Asstt Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. CPC’ hereinafter] for assessment year 2015-16 [‘AY’ hereinafter]. ITAT-Panaji Page 1 of 4
Sangeeta Kuriakos Vs ITO, Mumbai ITA Nos.488/PAN/2025 AY: 2015-16 2. At the outset of hearing, the Ld. Robinson candidly submitted that, the assessee failed to file return and as per PAN data the assessee’s address was D-121, 2nd Floor, Saket, New Delhi-110017. In the absence of return the assessee’s case was reopened on the basis of information and in the event of failure on the part of assessee to explain nature & source of various financial transactions, the income was assessee to the best of judgement u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act by the NFeAC. However as per form 35 for the year under consideration the assessing officer who hold the territorial jurisdictional over the assessee is Ld. ITO, Circle-22(1) Mumbai [Mum-C(197)(1)]. Therefore, it was averred by the appellant 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’ hereinafter], Panaji Bench Goa. Per contra, reiterating the text from standing order of ITAT issued in 2002 and binding precedence laid in ‘PCIT Vs ABC Paper Ltd.’ [2022, 447 ITR 1 (SC)] the Revenue claimed that, in view of the rule 4 of ITAT-Rules this bench is not even empowered to transfer the appeal to the respective bench of ITAT. To buttress this proposition the Ld. DR placed strong reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in ‘PCIT Vs MSP’ [2023, 454 ITR 280 (SC)] prayed that, the present appeal of the appellant assessee de-facto deserve to be dismissed in limine on the ground of jurisdiction as not maintainable. ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 4
Sangeeta Kuriakos Vs ITO, Mumbai ITA Nos.488/PAN/2025 AY: 2015-16 3. We have heard rival party’s consensual submissions 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; “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. 7. 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 ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 4
Sangeeta Kuriakos Vs ITO, Mumbai ITA Nos.488/PAN/2025 AY: 2015-16 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)
A similar ratio was followed in ‘Manjunath Vishnusa Habib Vs ACIT’ [2025 (8) TMI 880], ‘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 thus necessitating departure from maintaining parity with aforestated adjudications (supra), without offering our comments we dismiss the present appeal of the appellant in limine as ‘not-maintainable’ with a grant of leave to institute it (accompanying therewith challan 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.
In result, the appeal 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.
-S/d- -S/d- PAVAN KUMAR GADALE G. D. PADMAHSHALI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Panaji/Dt: 16th March, 2026. Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)/NFAC Concerned 4. PCIT Concerned 5. DR, ITAT, Panaji Bench, Goa 6. Guard File By Order, Sr. Private Secretary / AR ITAT, Panaji. ITAT-Panaji Page 4 of 4
