2024 (12) TMI 1722 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal jurisdiction follows the Assessing Officer's territorial location, and a section 127 transfer does not change it.

Appellate jurisdiction of the Tribunal was held to depend on the territorial location of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer under the applicable ... Territorial jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal - Situs of the AO - Maintainability of appeal before the proper Bench HELD THAT:- The Tribunal held that, under the applicable standing order read with the rule governing ordinary jurisdiction, the decisive factor for determining the appellate forum is the situs of the Assessing Officer. Relying on PCIT Vs ABC Paper Ltd. [2022 (8) TMI 863 - SUPREME COURT] it held that jurisdiction is controlled by the location of the Assessing Officer and not by other administrative considerations. On the facts found, the Assessing Officer who passed the original assessment was at Mangalore in Uttara Kannada District, which, under the amended territorial allocation governing the Panaji Bench, did not fall within its jurisdiction. The assessee's opting for the dispute resolution scheme did not alter that position. [Paras 4, 5, 6] The appeal was dismissed in limine as not maintainable, with liberty to institute it before the appropriate Bench if the dispute remained unsettled under the scheme. Final Conclusion: The Tribunal declined to entertain the appeal for want of territorial jurisdiction, holding that the proper forum had to be identified with reference to the location of the Assessing Officer who framed the assessment. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as not maintainable with liberty to approach the appropriate Bench. Issues: (i) Whether the appeal was maintainable before the Panaji Bench of the Tribunal when the jurisdictional Assessing Officer was located outside its territorial jurisdiction.Issue (i): Whether the appeal was maintainable before the Panaji Bench of the Tribunal when the jurisdictional Assessing Officer was located outside its territorial jurisdiction.Analysis: The ordinary territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal was held to depend on the location of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer under the applicable standing order and the Tribunal's jurisdictional arrangement. The situs of the Assessing Officer was treated as the ative factor for appellate jurisdiction, and a transfer of case under section 127 of the Act did not alter that principle. Since the Assessing Officer who framed the assessment was situated at Mangalore, outside the Panaji Bench's territorial limits, the appeal could not be entertained by that Bench.Conclusion: The appeal was not maintainable before the Panaji Bench and was dismissed in limine for want of jurisdiction.Final Conclusion: The Tribunal declined to entertain the appeal on jurisdictional grounds and left the assessee to approach the appropriate Bench, if necessary.Ratio Decidendi: Appellate jurisdiction of the Tribunal is determined by the territorial location of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, and not by an administrative transfer of the case under section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.