ITAT appellate jurisdiction follows the Assessing Officer's location, and case transfer cannot shift the proper forum.

The jurisdiction of the ITAT appeal is determined by the territorial location of the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order. Section 127 governs transfer among income-tax authorities only and does not alter the appellate jurisdiction of the ITAT or the High Court. An executive transfer of the assessee's appeals from the Bangalore Bench to the Mumbai Bench could not change the proper appellate forum, so the transfer order was unsustainable. The appeals remained maintainable before the ITAT, Bangalore Bench, and the special leave petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the order transferring the assessee's appeals from the Bangalore Bench to the Mumbai Bench of the ITAT and whether, despite transfer of cases under Section 127, the appeal against the assessment order would lie before the ITAT Bench within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer is situated.

Analysis: The governing principle reiterated from the earlier decision is that the jurisdiction of the appellate forum depends upon the location of the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order. Section 127, which governs transfer of income-tax cases among authorities, affects only the jurisdiction of the Income Tax Authorities and does not control the jurisdiction of the ITAT or of the High Court. The appellate jurisdiction under Section 260A read with Section 269 remains tied to the territorial situs of the Assessing Officer, and executive transfer of a case cannot alter the identity of the proper appellate forum. The earlier transfer of the assessee's appeals from Bangalore to Mumbai was therefore not sustainable.

Conclusion: The High Court was correct in quashing the transfer order. The appeals were held to be maintainable before the ITAT, Bangalore Bench, and the Special Leave Petition was dismissed.

---