VENKITESH SUBRAMANIAN,TRIVANDRUM vs. CPC BENGALURU, BENGALURU
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable before the Pune Bench as the jurisdictional Assessing Officer's situs falls outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Bench. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT Vs ABC Paper Ltd.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT, Pune, against an order of the CIT(A) which had dismissed the assessee's appeal as barred by limitation. The assessee did not appear for the hearing, and the appeal was decided ex-parte.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the territorial jurisdiction of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to hear the appeal, based on the situs of the Assessing Officer.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 253,Section 250,Section 143(1B),Section 249(2)(c),Section 127
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- PCIT v. ABC Papers Ltd.181 citing141 Taxmann.com 332 · 2022 · SC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENCH ‘SMC’ PUNE
Before: HON’BLE SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM; This appeal of the assessee instituted u/s 253(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’ hereinafter] impugns DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1064053223(1) dt. 12/04/2024 passed by Ld. Addl./Jt. Commissioner of Appeals- 1, Jaipur [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ hereinafter] u/s 250 of the Act, which in turn arisen out of orders an intimation passed by the Ld. Central Processing Centre Bengaluru [‘Ld. CPC’ hereinafter] u/s 143(1B) of the Act anent to assessment year 2018-19 [‘AY’ hereinafter].
ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 3
Venkitesh Subramanian Vs CPC AY:2018-19
The case was called twice, none appeared at the bequest of appellant assessee, and we did found no request for adjournment on record. On the primary briefing from the Ld. DR we thought fit to dispose the matter ex-parte u/s 24 of Income Tax Appellate Rules, 1963.
The records prima-facie reveals us that; an intimation u/s 143(IB) of the Act vide order dt. 19/03/2020 by the Ld. CPC which was assailed in an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) on 11/11/2023. The said appeal was dismissed in-limine by the Ld. CIT(A) as barred by limitation u/s 249(2)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved by the impugned order the assessee filed the present appeal before this tribunal.
At the outset of hearing, the Ld. DR Mr Prasad submitted that, the situs of the assessing officer who exercises jurisdiction over the appellant assessee falls outside the jurisdiction of this Bench; therefore present appeal of the assessee is not maintainable. To buttress this contention the Ld. DR beside pressing into service the standing order of ITAT also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in ‘PCIT Vs ABC Paper Ltd.’ reported in [2022] 447 ITR 1 (SC) [Equivalent Citation 141 Taxmann.com 332 (SC)].
Heard the Ld. DR and we note that, the registry vide letter dt. 07/05/2024 intimated a defect relating to non-filing of respondent’s information, in response thereto the appellant vide letter dt. 15/05/2024 confirmed the fact that his jurisdictional assessing officer is ‘Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Trivandrum, Area Code: KRL-W-92’ [‘Ld. AO’ hereinafter]. Thus undisputedly the situs of the Ld. AO falls outside the jurisdiction of this Tribunal/Bench.
ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 3
Venkitesh Subramanian Vs CPC AY:2018-19
Although certain benches of the Tribunal exercise its jurisdiction over more than one state, however the explanation 4 to Standing Order dt. 01/10/1197 issued under rule 4(1) of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 prescribes that; the ordinary jurisdiction of the Tribunal should be based on the location of the Assessing Officer. Reinforcing the above principle, the Hon’ble Supreme court by its decision 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 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 the instant case since the situs of the Ld. AO who framed the assessment is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Pune Tribunal/Bench, in view of the former judicial precedents without offering our comments on any issue, we deem it fit to dismiss this appeal of the assessee as not maintainable but with leave to institute it before appropriate bench of the Tribunal which in law exercises the jurisdiction over the Jurisdictional AO of the assessee, ergo ordered accordingly.
In result the appeal of the assessee stands DISMISSED. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, the order pronounced in the open court on this Monday, 29th July, 2024.
-S/d- -S/d- VINAY BHAMORE G. D. PADMAHSHALI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / PUNE ; दिन ांक / Dated : 29th July, 2024. आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1.अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT Concerned. 4. The CIT(A) Concerned. 5. DR, ITAT, Bench ‘SMC’, Pune 6. ग र्डफ़ इल / Guard File. आिेश नुस र / By Order वररष्ठ दनजी सदिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय न्य य दिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.
ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 3
More judgments on Section 127
- Radhakishan Potharajula, Karim Nagar vs ITO (Int Taxn)-2, HyderabadITA 2340/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Kishor Kumar Aggarwal, Gurgaon vs ACIT-Central Circle-30- Delhi., DelhiITA 2305/DEL/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Kishor Kumar Aggarwal, Gurgaon vs ACIT-Central Circle-30, DelhiITA 2304/DEL/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Chenna Narayana Chakka, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward 6(1), HyderabadITA 1944/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
- Chenna Narayana Chakka, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward-6(1), HyderabadITA 1943/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetanj Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Namita Behera vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Ratul Boro vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Jashwant Sharma vs. The Union Of INDIA And A4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026