DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALURU, MANGALURU V. K SEETHARAM RAI, PUTTUR

ITA 145/PAN/2023

AI Insights

The case involves six appeals by the Revenue against K Seetharam Rai, challenging the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals-2, Panaji, which were based on the assessment orders by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru. The primary legal issue was the jurisdiction of the ITAT Panaji Bench to hear the appeals, given that the assessing officer's jurisdiction was outside the Panaji Bench's territorial limits. The ITAT, after considering the submissions and relevant legal provisions, including the standing order of ITAT and the Supreme Court judgment in 'PCIT Vs ABC Paper Ltd.', concluded that the Panaji Bench did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the appeals.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 40504 (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: 2015-2016
• 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: 143(3); 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. 142 to 147/PAN/2023 Assessment Year : 2012-13 to 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Mangaluru. . . . . . . . Appellant V/s K Seetharam Rai #3-100, Rashmi Niwas, Savanoor Post, Puttur-574205 PAN:ABKPR0024Q. . . . . . . . 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 BENCH; The present bunch of six appeals of the Revenue is instituted challenging separate orders dt. 25/05/2023 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 separate assessment orders dt. 28/02/2018 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C/143(3) of the Act by the learned Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2, Mangaluru [‘Ld. AO’ hereinafter] involving assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 [‘AY’ hereinafter] DCIT Vs K Seetharam Rai ITA Nos.142 to 147/PAN/2023 ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 4 2. These cases were called twice separately; none appeared at the behest of respondent assessee, after a mindful consideration of limited issue involved in this bunch of appeals, 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 Ld. DR’s submission that; in this bunch of appeals, the assessing officer who framed the respondent’s assessment was Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, 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 appeals therefore not maintainable before this bench. To buttress this legal proposition the Ld. DR candidly assisted the bench 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)]. Per contra, there is hardly any written submission found placed on record to the contrary. DCIT Vs K Seetharam Rai ITA Nos.142 to 147/PAN/2023 ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 4 4. We have heard the Revenue’s submission on jurisdiction of this bench and subject to rule 18 of ITAT Rules, 1963 perused the material placed on 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 and (b) Belgaum alias Belgavi District of Karnataka State and (c) Uttara Kannada District of Karnataka State. Au contraire in the situs of Ld. AO who framed the assessments in this bunch of appeals was DCIT Vs K Seetharam Rai ITA Nos.142 to 147/PAN/2023 ITAT-Panaji Page 4 of 4 Mangaluru of Dakshina Kannada District of Karnataka State, which apparently outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Bench. 7. The clinching factual position that situs of the assessing officer who framed the assessments 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 appeals, 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 appeals. In view thereof, without offering our comments we dismiss these appeals as ‘not- maintainable’ with a grant of leave to institute them before an appropriate bench of the Tribunal which in law exercises the jurisdiction over the Ld. AO who framed the impugned assessments. 8. In result, these appeals of the Revenue are 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. "