Tribunal jurisdiction depends on the Assessing Officer's location, making the appeal non-maintainable before the wrong bench.

Jurisdiction of the Tribunal was treated as depending on the location of the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order. Because the assessment order was passed by an officer at Srikakulam, the appeal was held not to lie before the Cochin Bench. The Tribunal therefore found that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and applied the principle of coram non judice, resulting in dismissal for want of jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal was maintainable before the Cochin Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal when the assessment order had been passed by the Assessing Officer at Srikakulam.

Analysis: The jurisdiction of the Tribunal was held to depend on the location of the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order. As the assessment order in the case had been made by the officer situated at Srikakulam, the appeal did not lie before the Cochin Bench. On that basis, the Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and invoked the principle of coram non judice.

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

---