ITAT territorial jurisdiction follows Assessing Officer location, so appeal lay before the Hyderabad Bench rather than Chennai.

ITAT territorial jurisdiction for filing an appeal depends on the location of the Assessing Officer under Rule 4 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, read with Notification No. F.No.63-AD(AT/97) dated 16.09.1997. Where the Assessing Officer was stationed at Hyderabad, the proper forum was the ITAT, Hyderabad Bench, not the Chennai Bench. On that basis, the appeal before the Chennai Bench was treated as not maintainable for want of jurisdiction and dismissed, with liberty to present a fresh appeal before the Hyderabad Bench and seek condonation of delay, if necessary.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal was maintainable before the ITAT, Chennai Bench when the Assessing Officer was stationed at Hyderabad.

Analysis: The jurisdiction of the Bench was held to be governed by Rule 4 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, read with Notification No. F.No.63-AD(AT/97) dated 16.09.1997, under which the ordinary jurisdiction depends on the location of the Assessing Officer. As the assessee's Assessing Officer was located at Hyderabad, the appeal ought to have been filed before the ITAT, Hyderabad Bench.

Conclusion: The appeal before the ITAT, Chennai Bench was held to be not maintainable for want of jurisdiction and was dismissed, with liberty to file a fresh appeal before the ITAT, Hyderabad Bench along with a petition for condonation of delay, if any.

---