2024 (11) TMI 1608 - AT - Income Tax

Territorial jurisdiction of the ITAT follows the Assessing Officer's situs, making an appeal before the wrong Bench non-maintainable.

Tribunal territorial jurisdiction is determined by the situs of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer under the relevant standing order and Rule 4(1) of ... Territorial jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal - Situs of the assessing officer - Appellate forum jurisdiction - Territorial maintainability of appeal - determination of location of the assessing officer who passed the assessment order under challenge HELD THAT: - The Tribunal held that, under the standing orders governing ordinary jurisdiction, the decisive test for identifying the proper appellate bench is the situs of the assessing officer. Relying on PCIT Vs ABC Paper Ltd.[2022 (8) TMI 863 - SUPREME COURT] it observed that the location of the assessing officer alone determines the jurisdiction of the appellate forum, irrespective of other administrative arrangements. Since the assessment had been framed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangaluru, situated in Dakshina Kannada District, and that district did not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of the Panaji Bench, the appeal was not maintainable before that Bench. The proper forum was the Bangalore Bench, and the appeal was dismissed with liberty to institute it before the competent Bench. [Paras 5, 6, 7] Final Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable before the Panaji Bench, holding that appellate jurisdiction depended upon the situs of the assessing officer who passed the assessment order. Liberty was granted to institute the appeal before the competent Bench. Issues: (i) Whether the Panaji Bench of the Tribunal had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Revenue's appeal when the Assessing Officer was stationed outside its notified territorial limits.Issue (i): Whether the Panaji Bench of the Tribunal had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Revenue's appeal when the Assessing Officer was stationed outside its notified territorial limits.Analysis: The territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal was held to depend on the location of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The governing standing order under Rule 4(1) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 fixes ordinary jurisdiction with reference to the situs of the Assessing Officer, and the principle was reinforced by the Supreme Court's ruling that the situs of the Assessing Officer is the ative factor for appellate forum jurisdiction. Since the Assessing Officer who framed the assessment was located at Mangaluru in Dakshina Kannada District, which falls outside the territorial limits of the Panaji Bench, the appeal could not be entertained by that Bench.Conclusion: The Panaji Bench lacked territorial jurisdiction and the appeal was not maintainable before it.Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge could not be examined on merits by the Panaji Bench and was directed to be pursued before the appropriate Bench having jurisdiction over the Assessing Officer.Ratio Decidendi: The appellate jurisdiction of the Tribunal is determined by the situs of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, and an appeal filed before a Bench lacking territorial jurisdiction is not maintainable.