Territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal turns on the Assessing Officer's location; appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that appeal jurisdiction depends on the location of the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order under the applicable standing order and tribunal rules. Because the impugned assessment order was issued from Rajkot, outside the Cochin Bench's territorial jurisdiction, that Bench could not entertain the appeal. It also applied the principle that proceedings before a forum lacking jurisdiction are coram non judice. The appeal was therefore held not maintainable before the Cochin Bench and dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal was maintainable before the Cochin Bench of the Tribunal when the assessment order had been passed by an Assessing Officer situated outside its territorial jurisdiction.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that its jurisdiction is determined by the location of the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order, in terms of the applicable standing order and the governing tribunal rules. Since the assessment order emanated from Rajkot and not from within the Cochin Bench's jurisdiction, the appeal could not be entertained by that Bench. The Tribunal also relied on the principle that proceedings instituted before a forum lacking jurisdiction are coram non judice.

Conclusion: The appeal was not maintainable before the Cochin Bench and was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

---