The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Udupi V. M/s Manipal Technologies Limited, Udupi

ITA 71/PAN/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0998 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: WT(D)
• Next Hearing Date: 04-03-2024
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 04-06-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BADRINATH YAMAJI CHAVAN
• Assessee Lawyers: POOJA SHARMA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH : PANAJI [THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING AT INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : PUNE BENCHES : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.71/PAN./2020 Assessment Year 2014-2015 The DCIT, Circle-1, Aayakar Bhavan, Malpe Road, Udupi. PIN – 576 103. Karnataka vs. M/s. Manipal Technologies Ltd., Udayavani Building, Manipal,Udupi – 576 104. PAN AABCM9516H (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri Badrinath Yamaji Chavan For Assessee : Smt. Pooja Sharma Date of Hearing : 05.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement : .03.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This Revenue’s appeal I.T.A.No.71/PAN./2020, for assessment year 2014-20157, arises against the CIT(A), Mangaluru, Mangaluru’s order in case no.ITA.No.10401/UDP/CIT(A)MNG/ 2017-18, dated 25.02.2020, involving proceedings u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2. It emerges at the outset that the learned Assessing Officer i.e., DCIT, Circle-1, Udupi had framed his impugned assessment at Udupi not having “situs” within the territorial jurisdiction of Panaji Bench of the ITAT as per the Standing Order 2 ITA.Nos.71 /PAN./2020 issued Under Income Tax [Appellate Tribunal] Rules, 1963 notified w.e.f. 01.10.1997 followed by hon’ble President’s latter order dated 04.12.2002 re-allocating territorial jurisdiction of Bengaluru Bench(es) of the tribunal to “(1) the State of Karnataka [excluding the district of Belgaum and Karwar taluka of the Uttar Kannada District]” and for Panaji benches as (2) “State of Goa; the District of Belgaum and Karwar Taluka of the Uttar Kannada District of Karnataka State”; respectively. Faced with this situation, we reject the Revenue’s instant appeals “as returned” with liberty to be instituted afresh before the appropriate bench(es) of the tribunal having territorial jurisdiction as per “situs” of the Assessing Officer in the foregoing terms. Ordered accordingly. 3. This Revenue’s appeal I.T.A.No.71/PAN./2020 is “rejected as returned” in above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on 05.03.2024. Sd/- Sd/- [I. RAMA RAO] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 05 th March, 2024 VBP/- Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The CIT(A), Mangaluru. Karnataka State 4. The Pr. CIT, Mangalore. 5. The D.R. ITAT, Panaji Bench, Panaji 6. Guard File. //By Order// //True Copy // Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.