Territorial jurisdiction of tax appeals depends on the Assessing Officer's location; appeal before the wrong bench was not maintainable.

The Tribunal's ordinary territorial jurisdiction depends on the situs of the Assessing Officer who framed the assessment. Where the assessment was completed by an officer at Sirsi in Uttara Kannada District, outside the Panaji Bench's notified territorial range, the appeal lacked the required territorial nexus and was not maintainable before that Bench. The appellate forum must be identified by the location of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, not by any administrative transfer arrangement. The Revenue's appeal was therefore dismissed, with liberty to approach the proper bench having territorial competence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal was maintainable before the Panaji Bench in view of the territorial jurisdiction linked to the location of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.

Analysis: The ordinary jurisdiction of the Tribunal is determined by the situs of the Assessing Officer. The standing order governing territorial allocation confined the Panaji Bench to specified areas, and the assessment in question was framed by an officer situated at Sirsi in Uttara Kannada District, which fell outside that territorial range. The legal position was reinforced by the principle that the appellate forum is to be identified by the location of the Assessing Officer and not by any administrative transfer arrangement.

Conclusion: The appeal was not maintainable before the Panaji Bench and could not be entertained.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's appeal failed on jurisdiction and was dismissed with liberty to approach the proper bench having territorial competence.

Ratio Decidendi: The jurisdiction of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is governed by the territorial situs of the Assessing Officer who framed the assessment, and an appeal filed before a bench lacking such territorial nexus is not maintainable.

---