ITAT Bench jurisdiction depends on the assessing officer's location, while a special President's order can validly assign a miscellaneous application.

Jurisdiction of an ITAT Bench may be validly conferred by the President's general or special assignment powers under section 255(5) and rule 4, so a special order directing a miscellaneous application to the Visakhapatnam Bench was sufficient to enable that Bench to hear and decide it. The standing order under rule 4 also made ordinary appellate jurisdiction depend on the location of the assessing officer's office, not the assessee's place of business. As the assessing officer was at Khammam, the earlier appeal belonged to the Hyderabad Bench; the prior order was treated as having been passed without territorial jurisdiction and was recalled for transfer.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Visakhapatnam Bench had jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the miscellaneous application on the strength of the President's special order; (ii) Whether the earlier appeal order was without jurisdiction because the assessing officer was located at Khammam and, therefore, the appeal belonged to the Hyderabad Bench.

Issue (i): Whether the Visakhapatnam Bench had jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the miscellaneous application on the strength of the President's special order.

Analysis: The Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the President had power under section 255(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and rule 4 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 to regulate Benches and assign matters by general or special order. A specific order of the President directed that the miscellaneous application be placed before the members of the Visakhapatnam Bench for consideration and disposal. That special assignment was sufficient to confer jurisdiction over the miscellaneous application.

Conclusion: The Visakhapatnam Bench had jurisdiction to hear and decide the miscellaneous application.

Issue (ii): Whether the earlier appeal order was without jurisdiction because the assessing officer was located at Khammam and, therefore, the appeal belonged to the Hyderabad Bench.

Analysis: The standing order issued under rule 4 made the jurisdiction of a Bench dependent on the location of the office of the assessing officer and not on the assessee's place of business or residence. Since the assessing officer who passed the assessment order was located at Khammam, the ordinary appellate jurisdiction lay with the Hyderabad Bench. Participation of the parties in the earlier hearing did not confer jurisdiction where the Bench otherwise lacked it. The earlier order was therefore passed by a Bench lacking territorial jurisdiction under the standing order.

Conclusion: The earlier appeal order was without jurisdiction and required recall and transfer to the Hyderabad Bench.

Final Conclusion: The miscellaneous application succeeded because the special order validly enabled the Bench to deal with it, and the earlier appeal order was recalled as it had been passed by a Bench not having ordinary jurisdiction under the standing order.

Ratio Decidendi: Jurisdiction of an Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Bench is governed by the President's assignment under rule 4 and the standing order, and ordinarily turns on the location of the assessing officer's office rather than the assessee's place of business; a special order can validly authorize a Bench to hear a miscellaneous application.

---