HENRY DAVID FERNANDES,ARLEM V. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU

ITA 345/PAN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Henry David Fernandes against an order passed by the Addl./Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals-2, Gururam, which was based on an intimation from the Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru, concerning the assessment year 2019-20. The primary legal issue was the jurisdiction of the ITAT, Panaji, to hear the appeal, given that the assessing officer was located in Mumbai, outside the Tribunal's territorial jurisdiction. The Tribunal referenced several precedents and rules to conclude that it lacked the authority to hear the case and dismissed the appeal accordingly.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 834460 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: WT(D)
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 16-10-2025
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT Vs ABC Paper Ltd., PCIT Vs MSP, DCIT Vs M/s Kushal Stone Crushers & M Sand Plant, Manjunath Vishnusa Habib Vs ACIT, Monappa S Shetty Vs ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RIJJULA UNIYAL LD.
• Assessee Lawyers: D.E. ROBINSON LD.

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, GOA ITAT-Panaji Page 1 of 4 BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 345/PAN/2025 Assessment Year : 2019-20 Henry David Fernandes H.No. 141/1-5, Orchids Co-Op. Hsg. Board, Raia, South Goa-403720 PAN : AABPF3232G . . . . . . . Appellant V/s Income Tax Officer/CPC, Ward-34(1)(4) Mumbai . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee by : Mr D. E. Robinson [‘Ld. AR’] Revenue by : Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’] Date of conclusive Hearing : 03/02/2026 Date of Pronouncement : 03/02/2026 ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI; This appeal of the assessee impugns DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/250/2025-26/1078008116(1) dt. 30/06/2025 passed by the Addl./Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals-2, Gururam [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ hereinafter] u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’ hereinafter] which in turn arisen out of intimation dt. 20/12/2019 passed u/s 143(1) of the Act by the Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru [‘Ld. CPC’ hereinafter] anent to assessment year 2019-20 [‘AY’ hereinafter]. Printed from counselvise.com Henry David Fernandes Vs ITO, Mumbai ITA Nos.345/PAN/2025 AY: 2019-20 ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 4 2. At the outset of hearing, the rival parties have commonly stated that, although the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act was passed by Ld. CPC, however the assessing officer who holds the territorial jurisdictional over the assessee is Ld. ITO, Ward-34(1)(4), Mumbai. Therefore, it was averred by Revenue that, the situs of the Ld. AO who exercises territorial jurisdiction over the assessee falls outside the territorial jurisdiction of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [‘ITAT’ hereafter], Panaji Benches Panaji. Reiterating the text from standing order of ITAT issued in the year 2002 and binding precedence laid in ‘PCIT Vs ABC Paper Ltd.’ [2022, 447 ITR 1 (SC)] the it is claimed that, in view of the rule 4 of ITAT-Rules this bench is not even empowered to transfer the appeal to the respective bench of ITAT. To buttress this proposition the Ld. DR Uniyal placed strong reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in ‘PCIT Vs MSP’ [2023, 454 ITR 280 (SC)] prayed that, the present appeal of the appellant assessee de-facto deserve to be dismissed in limine on the ground of jurisdiction as not maintainable. 3. We have heard rival party’s consensual submissions and subject to rule 18 (supra) perused the material placed on records. We note that an identical issue came for a consideration in ‘DCIT Vs M/s Kushal Stone Crushers & M Sand Plant’ (ITA No 150/PAN/2023 dt. 26/11/2024) wherein the situs of the Printed from counselvise.com Henry David Fernandes Vs ITO, Mumbai ITA Nos.345/PAN/2025 AY: 2019-20 ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 4 assessing officer who framed the assessment was Mangaluru District of State of Karnataka therefore the Co-ordinate bench on the ground of jurisdiction vide para 5-7 has dismissed the appeal of the Revenue in limine as not-maintainable as; “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. In aforestated context we note that, the Hon’ble President of ITAT by an order dt. 19/10/2001 amended the territorial jurisdiction of this ITAT Panaji Benches, Panaji (Goa) by confining it to (a) The State of Goa comprising two districts viz; North Goa & South Goa (b) Belgaum alias Belgavi District of Karnataka State (c) Mangalore, Karwar and Uttara Kannada District of Karnataka State. Subsequently vide order dt. 04/10/2002 the jurisdiction of this ITAT Panaji Bench, Panaji further limited by amendment to (a) State of Goa (b) Belgaum District and ‘Karwar Taluka of Uttara Kannada District’ of Karnataka State. 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.” (Emphasis supplied) Printed from counselvise.com Henry David Fernandes Vs ITO, Mumbai ITA Nos.345/PAN/2025 AY: 2019-20 ITAT-Panaji Page 4 of 4 4. A similar adjudication can also be traced in ‘Manjunath Vishnusa Habib Vs ACIT’ (ITA No 080/PAN/2024), ‘Monappa S Shetty Vs ITO’ (ITA No 168/PAN/2023), ‘DCIT Vs M/s Kushal Stone Crushers & M Sand Plant’ (ITA No 150/PAN/2023). 5. In the absence of anything contrary brought to our notice thus necessitating departure from maintaining parity with the aforestated adjudications (supra), without offering our comments we dismiss the present appeal of the appellant assessee in limine as ‘not-maintainable’ with a grant of leave to institute it (accompanying therewith challans of appeal fees already paid for the present appeal), before an appropriate bench of the Tribunal which in law exercises the jurisdiction over the assessing officer who had the territorial jurisdiction over the appellant assessee for the year under consideration. 6. In result, the appeal stands DISMISSED as above. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 the order 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: 03rd February, 2026. 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, Goa 6. Guard File By Order, Sr. Private Secretary / AR ITAT, Panaji. Printed from counselvise.com "