DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU, MANGALURU V. KUSHAL STONE CRUSHERS AND M SAND PLANT, UDUPI

ITA 150/PAN/2023

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangaluru against M/s Kushal Stone Crushers & M Sand Plant concerning an assessment order for the year 2019-20. The primary legal issue was the jurisdiction of the ITAT Panaji Bench to hear the appeal, given that the assessing officer's jurisdiction was outside Panaji. The ITAT, after considering the standing orders and a Supreme Court judgment, concluded that it did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and thus dismissed it, advising the Revenue to approach the appropriate bench in Bangalore.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 26296 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: WT(D)
• Next Hearing Date: 25-11-2024
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 01-09-2023
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT Vs ABC Paper Ltd. [2022, 447 ITR 1 (SC)]
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CAPT. PRADEEP ARYA LD.
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI ITAT-Panaji Page 1 of 4 BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 150/PAN/2023 Assessment Year : 2019-20 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangaluru. . . . . . . . Appellant V/s M/s Kushal Stone Crushers & M Sand Plant Animitha, 1-44, Pandubettu, Malpe Road, Post Ambalpady, Udupi-576103. PAN:AATFK6640D. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee by : None for the assessee Revenue by : Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. DR’] Date of conclusive Hearing : 25/11/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 26/11/2024 ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM; The present appeal of the Revenue is instituted challenging DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/M/250/2023-24/1053279879(1) dt. 29/05/2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals-2, Panaji [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ hereinafter] u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’ hereinafter] which in turn arisen out of assessment order dt. 08/03/2021 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act by the learned Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangaluru [‘Ld. AO’ hereinafter] anent to assessment year 2019- 20 [‘AY’ hereinafter] DCIT Vs M/s Kushal Stone Crushers & M Sand Plant ITA Nos.150/PAN/2023 ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 4 2. The case was called twice; none appeared at the behest of respondent assessee, after a mindful consideration of limited issue involved, we deem it fit to proceed in the absence of respondent ex-parte u/r 25 of ITAT-Rules, 1963 and adjudicate the same with the able assistance from Ld. DR Capt. Pradeep Arya. Recording the same, we advanced accordingly. 3. It emerges at the very outset from the respondent’s letter dt. 22/11/2024 that; the assessing officer who framed the respondent’s assessment was Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangaluru of Dakshina Kannada district of Karnataka State. It is brought to our notice that, the situs of the assessing officer who exercised the assessment jurisdiction over the assessee falls outside the jurisdiction of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Benches Panaji. The present appeal of the Revenue is therefore requested for transfer to respective bench. To solidify the legal position in relation to jurisdiction, the Ld. DR candidly assisted by taking us through the standing order of ITAT issued in the year 1971 and also the recent judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in ‘PCIT Vs ABC Paper Ltd.’ [2022, 447 ITR 1 (SC)]. 4. We have heard the rival submissions on jurisdiction of this bench and subject to rule 18 of ITAT Rules, 1963 perused the material placed on DCIT Vs M/s Kushal Stone Crushers & M Sand Plant ITA Nos.150/PAN/2023 ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 4 records and considered the issue in the light of settled position of law which was also forewarned to the parties present. 5. We are mindful to state here that, although certain benches of the Tribunal exercise its jurisdiction over more than one state, however the explanation 4 to Standing Order dt. 01/10/1997 issued under rule 4(1) of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 categorically prescribes that; the ordinary jurisdiction of the Tribunal should be based on the location of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Reinforcing the above principle, the Hon’ble Supreme court by its judgement in ‘PCIT Vs ABC Papers Ltd.’ (supra), has put the issue of jurisdiction of appellate forum to rest by holding that, the ‘situs of the assessing officer’ is the only decisive key factor for determining the jurisdiction of appellate forum irrespective of any administrative order passed u/s 127 of the Act in relation to transfer of cases. 6. We are mindful to the jurisdiction of this ITAT Panaji Benches, Panaji which is limited over (a) State of Goa comprising two districts viz; North Goa & South Goa; (b) Belgaum alias Belgavi District of Karnataka State and (c) Uttara Kannada District of Karnataka State. Au contraire the situs of Ld. AO who framed the assessment in this case was Mangaluru of Dakshina Kannada District of Karnataka State, which apparently outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Bench. DCIT Vs M/s Kushal Stone Crushers & M Sand Plant ITA Nos.150/PAN/2023 ITAT-Panaji Page 4 of 4 7. The clinching factual position that situs of the assessing officer who framed the assessment under challenge being Mangaluru which falls beyond the territorial jurisdiction of Panaji Tribunal/Benches, therefore this Bench of the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to entertain the instant appeal, going by the Standing Order (supra). As per the foregoing notification, the Tribunal's Bangalore Benches, Bangalore is vested with the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the appellant's instant appeal. In view thereof, without offering our comments we dismiss the present appeal as ‘not- maintainable’ with a grant of leave to institute it before an appropriate bench of the Tribunal which in law exercises the jurisdiction over the Ld. AO who framed the impugned assessment dt. 08/03/2021. 8. In result, the appeal of the Revenue is DISMISSED as above. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 these orders are pronounced in the open court on date mentioned herein before. -S/d- -S/d- PAVAN KUMAR GADALE G. D. PADMAHSHALI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Panaji/Dt: 26th day of November, 2024. Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)/NFAC Concerned 4. PCIT Concerned 5. DR, ITAT, Panaji Bench, Panaji 6. Guard File By Order, Sr. Private Secretary / AR ITAT, Panaji. "