ACIT(IT) CIRCLE-2, PUNE, PUNE vs. STANTEC UK LIMITED, UNITED KINGDOM

ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 4

Since the facts and issues involved in this bunch of appeals are common & identical, on the request from the Revenue, for the sake of brevity these appeals are heard together for a common and consolidated order.

The records prima-facie reveals that; 4.1 The assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144(3) of the Act vide order dt. 24/06/2021 & 08/11/2021 for AY 2018-19 & 2019-20 respectively were framed by the Ld. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, International Tax Circle-4(2)(2), Mumbai whereby the corporate charges received by the assessee from its Indian Associate Enterprise viz; Stantec Resource Net India Pvt. Ltd. [‘AE’ hereinafter] were treated as Fees for Technical Service [‘FTS’ hereinafter] and accordingly brought to tax @ prescribed u/a 13 of India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement [‘DTAA’ hereinafter] 4.2 Aggrieved by the aforestated determinations & taxation, the assessee company filed separate appeals which were allowed by the Ld. CIT(A)-13, Pune by separate orders dt. 09/01/2024 & 12/01/2024 u/s 250 of the Act.

During the course of hearing, the Ld. DR Mr Rawlani adverting to notification S.O.4873(E) [No. 113/2022/F.No.279/Misc/66/2014-ITJ(PT)] dt. 13/10/2022 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes [‘CBDT’ hereinafter] averred that, in first place the first appellate jurisdiction over the appeals arising out of orders of assessment passed by the Ld. AO was with Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax-(Appeals), Mumbai-58 [‘Jurisdictional-CIT(A)’ hereinafter] and not with the Ld. CIT(A). In support of this ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 4

Without offering our comments on twofold jurisdictional issue brought to our notice by the Ld. DR viz; (i) jurisdiction of first appellate authority i.e. Ld. CIT(A) in adjudicating the appeals of the assessee company filed against the orders of assessment passed by Ld. AO in violation of or sidestepping the CBDT’s binding notification (supra) (ii) and disregarding law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in ‘PCIT Vs ABC Paper Ltd.’ reported in [2022] 447 ITR 1 (SC) [Equivalent Citation 141 Taxmann.com 332 (SC)] in the absence of transfer order (if any), we have heard party/ies present on a limited issue of territorial jurisdiction of this Tribunal over the present appeals filed by the Revenue and subject to rule 18 of ITAT Rules, 1963 perused the relevant material placed on records.

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 view of above, in this twin appeals since the situs of the Ld. AO who framed the assessment is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Tribunal, therefore without offering our comments on former twofold issue dilated at para 6 hereinbefore, we deem it fit to dismiss this twin appeals of the Revenue with leave to institute them before appropriate bench of the Tribunal which exercises the jurisdiction over the Ld. AO who framed the assessment, ergo ordered accordingly. 9. Both the appeals of the Revenue in result are DISMISSED on above terms. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, the order pronounced in the open court on this Thursday, 06th June, 2024.