SANGEETA KURIAKOS,TALEIGAO vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC, DELHI

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 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 judge ment 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 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.