Territorial appellate jurisdiction controls maintainability: appeals filed before the wrong ITAT Bench were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Territorial appellate jurisdiction lay with the ITAT, Bengaluru because the assessee's place of business was in Mangaluru, Karnataka; the fact that the first appellate orders were passed by the Addl./JCIT (Appeals), Visakhapatnam did not confer jurisdiction on the ITAT, Visakhapatnam. The Tribunal accepted the Revenue's objection that the appeals had been filed before the wrong forum and held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain them. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as not maintainable before the Visakhapatnam Bench.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeals were maintainable before the ITAT, Visakhapatnam when the assessee belonged to Mangaluru, Karnataka, and the proper appellate forum was the ITAT, Bengaluru.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the assessee's place of business and territorial jurisdiction lay with Bengaluru and that the mere fact that the first appellate orders were passed by the Addl./JCIT (Appeals), Visakhapatnam, did not confer jurisdiction on the Visakhapatnam Bench. On that basis, the Tribunal accepted the Revenue's objection that the appeals had been filed before an incorrect forum.

Conclusion: The appeals were held to be outside the jurisdiction of the ITAT, Visakhapatnam and were dismissed.

---