ITO, WARD-1, SIRSI, SIRSI, DIST. KARWAR V. .U K SOUHARDA CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, MALTESH ARCEDE, YELLAPUR

ITA 151/PAN/2023

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by the Revenue against U K Souharda Credit Co-op. Society Ltd. and Shree Vijayalaxmi Souharda, Sahakari Niyamit, concerning the assessment years 2017-18 and 2020-21, respectively. The appeals were filed under section 253(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1963, challenging the orders passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The primary issue was the territorial jurisdiction of the ITAT Panaji Bench to hear these appeals, given that the original assessments were conducted by the Income Tax Officer, Sirsi, located outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction as defined by the standing orders and supported by a Supreme Court judgment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 26304 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: WT(D)
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 06-09-2023
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT Vs ABC Paper Ltd. [2022, 447 ITR 1 (SC)]
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1963
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CAPT.PRADEEP ARYA; GURUKUMAR SOMPALLE LD.
• Assessee Lawyers: SUBRAHMANYA HEGDE LD.
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI ITAT-Panaji Page 1 of 4 sd BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 151/PAN/2023 & 251/PAN/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2020-21 Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sirsi. . . . . . . . Appellant V/s 1. U K Souharda Credit Co-op. Society Ltd. 2, Maltesh Arcade, Main Road, Nr. Petrol Bank, Yellapur, Sirsi. PAN:AAAAU6247Q . . . . . . . Respondent 1 2. Shree Vijayalaxmi Souharda, Sahakari Niyamit, Sirsi. 3, GP Centre, Yellapur,Sirsi. PAN:AAFAS3155E . . . . . . . Respondent 2 Appearances Assessee by : Mr Subrahmanya Hegde [‘Ld. AR’] Revenue by : Capt. Pradeep Arya & Mr Gurukumar Sompalle [‘Ld. DR’] Date of conclusive Hearing : 05/12/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 10/12/2024 ORDER PER GD. PADMAHSHALI; This twin appeals of the Revenue instituted u/s 253(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1963 [‘the Act’ hereinafter] challenges separate first appellate orders passed by Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. NFAC’ hereinafter] u/s 250 of the Act anent to aforestated respective assessment years [‘AY’ hereinafter]. ITA Nos.151/PAN/2023 and 251/PAN/2024 ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 4 2. Since a common threadbare issue of territorial jurisdiction of this Bench in this twin appeals has arisen for our consideration, on the rival party’s request, for the sake of brevity these appeals of the Revenue are heard together on former limited issue for being disposed-off by this common & consolidated order. 3. It emerges at the very outset from the Ld. AR’s common submissions that; in these two appeals/cases the assessing officer who framed the respondents’ respective original assessment was the Income Tax Officer, Sirsi of Uttara Kannada district of Karnataka State. It is therefore commonly contended by the respondent that, the situs of the assessing officer who exercised the assessment jurisdiction over these respondents since falls outside the jurisdiction of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Benches Panaji, hence these appeals of the Revenue are not maintainable for adjudication before this bench. To drive home this contention the Ld. AR beside pressing into service the standing order of ITAT have also relied upon the recent judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in ‘PCIT Vs ABC Paper Ltd.’ [2022, 447 ITR 1 (SC)]. Per contra, both the Ld. DR could hardly dismantle the respondent’s former assertion and & controvert validity of effective standing order of ITAT. ITA Nos.151/PAN/2023 and 251/PAN/2024 ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 4 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 records and considered the former issue in the light of settled position of law which was also forewarned to the parties present. We are mindful to state here that, although certain benches of the Tribunal exercise its territorial 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 in ‘PCIT Vs ABC Papers Ltd.’ (supra), has put the issue of jurisdiction 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. 5. 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. ITA Nos.151/PAN/2023 and 251/PAN/2024 ITAT-Panaji Page 4 of 4 Subsequently vide order dt. 04/10/2002 the jurisdiction of this ITAT Panaji Bench, Panaji further amended by limiting it to (a) State of Goa (b) Belgaum District and ‘Karwar Taluka of Uttara Kannada District’ of Karnataka State. 6. Now coming to present twin appeals, the clinching factual position that, the situs of the assessing officer who framed the respective original assessments was Sirsi, Yellapur of Uttara Kannada District of Karnataka State which admittedly falls beyond the territorial jurisdiction of Panaji Tribunal/Benches. Therefore, going by the Amended Standing Order (supra) this Bench ad-idem does not have jurisdiction to entertain these twin appeals. In view thereof, we dismiss both the appeals of the Revenue in limine as ‘not-maintainable’ with a grant of leave to institute them before an appropriate bench of the Tribunal. 7. In result, this twin appeals 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: 10th day of December, 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. "