Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an assessment order. The assessee's counsel argued that the territorial jurisdiction for the case lies outside the Panaji Bench of ITAT, as the Assessing Officer's situs is in Vijayapura, Karnataka. The Revenue objected, citing ITAT rules and Supreme Court precedents that the situs of the Assessing Officer determines jurisdiction.
Held
The Tribunal, relying on previous judgments and the principle that the situs of the Assessing Officer determines jurisdiction, dismissed the appeal as not maintainable before the Panaji Bench. It granted leave to the assessee to file the appeal before the appropriate ITAT bench that has territorial jurisdiction over the Assessing Officer.
Key Issues
The primary legal issue was determining the correct territorial jurisdiction of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal based on the situs of the Assessing Officer, as per ITAT Rules and Supreme Court pronouncements.
Sections Cited
Section 253(1), Section 147, Section 144, 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
ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI; By this appeal instituted u/s 253(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’] the captioned assessee impugns DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1080311226(1) dt. 03/09/2025 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. CIT(A)’] which in turn dealt with the order of assessment passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act by the National Faceless e-Asstt. Centre, Delhi [‘NFeAC’] for the assessment year 2018-19 [‘AY’] ITAT-Panaji Page 1 of 4 Shirahatti Halu Utpadkara Sahakari Sangh Niyamit Vs ITO, Vijayapura AY: 2018-19 2. At the outset of hearing, Ld. AR Mirji submitted that, although the order of assessment in the case of the assessee was passed by Ld. NFeAC u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act however the assessing officer who holds the territorial jurisdictional over the assessee for passing order giving effect is Ld. ITO, Ward-1, Vijayapura of Vijayapura District of Karnataka State. As 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 Benche Goa, therefore, it the prayer of the assessee to transfer this case to the appropriate Bench of ITAT which in law has the jurisdiction
Per contra, the Ld. DR though solidified the facts but objected the transfer of case. 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)] it is claimed by the Revenue 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 Renga Rajan 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 Shirahatti Halu Utpadkara Sahakari Sangh Niyamit Vs ITO, Vijayapura AY: 2018-19 4. 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.
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 ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 4 Shirahatti Halu Utpadkara Sahakari Sangh Niyamit Vs ITO, Vijayapura AY: 2018-19 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) 5. A similar adjudication can also be traced in ‘Bagalkot University Vs ITO [ITA No 373/Pan/2025] ‘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 we see no reason to depart from maintaining parity with the aforestated adjudications (supra). In view thereof, without offering our comments we dismiss the present appeal of the assessee in limine as ‘not-maintainable’ however with a grant of leave to institute it (accompanying therewith even challan of appeal fees already paid for this appeal), before an appropriate bench of the Tribunal which in law exercises the jurisdiction over the assessing officer who has the territorial jurisdiction over the appellant.
6. 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.