2025 (2) TMI 1685 - AT - Income Tax

Territorial jurisdiction before ITAT depends on the Assessing Officer's location; appeals filed outside the notified bench are not maintainable.

Territorial jurisdiction of the ITAT is determined by the location of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer under the Tribunal's standing order and Rule 4 ... Maintainability of appeal on the ground of jurisdiction - Territorial jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal - Situs of the AO Whether Panaji Bench had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the assessee's appeals where the jurisdictional Assessing Officer was situated at Sirsi in Uttara Kannada District? - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal followed its earlier coordinate bench view [Gajanan Rama Palankar [2025 (2) TMI 1680 - ITAT PANAJI], Manjunath Vishnusa Habib [2025 (8) TMI 880 - ITAT PANAJI] ‘Monappa S Shetty [2024 (12) TMI 1722 - ITAT PANAJI] and M/s Kushal Stone Crushers & M Sand Plant’that [2024 (11) TMI 1608 - ITAT PANAJI] the determinative test for appellate forum jurisdiction is the situs of the AO. Since, after the 2002 standing order, the territorial jurisdiction of the Panaji Bench did not extend to Sirsi, Uttara Kannada District, the appeals could not be maintained before that Bench. Maintaining parity with the earlier decisions and without entering upon the merits, the Tribunal held that the proper forum was the Bengaluru Bench having jurisdiction over the Assessing Officer concerned. [Paras 5] Final Conclusion: The Tribunal held that these appeals were not maintainable before the Panaji Bench because the jurisdictional Assessing Officer was situated outside its territorial jurisdiction. The appeals were accordingly dismissed with liberty to file them before the appropriate Bench having jurisdiction. Issues: (i) Whether the Panaji Bench had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the assessee's appeals when the jurisdictional Assessing Officer was situated outside its notified territory.Analysis: The Tribunal noted that ordinary territorial jurisdiction under the Tribunal's standing order and Rule 4 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 is determined by the location of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. It also relied on the settled principle that the situs of the Assessing Officer is the decisive factor for appellate forum jurisdiction, and found that the Assessing Officer in the present matter was stationed at Sirsi, Uttara Kannada District, which fell outside the Panaji Bench's territorial limits.Conclusion: The Panaji Bench lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeals, which were not maintainable before it.Final Conclusion: The appeals could not be adjudicated on merits before the Panaji Bench and were required to be presented before the appropriate bench having territorial jurisdiction over the Assessing Officer.Ratio Decidendi: Territorial jurisdiction of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is governed by the situs of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, and an appeal filed before a bench outside that territorial jurisdiction is not maintainable.