MONAPPA S SHETTY,MANGALORE V. .INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), MANGALORE

ITA 168/PAN/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Monappa S Shetty, who appealed against an order from the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) concerning the assessment year 2017-18. The primary legal issue was the jurisdiction of the ITAT Panaji Bench to hear the appeal, given that the original assessing officer was located in Mangalore, outside the Panaji Bench's territorial jurisdiction. The Income Tax Department argued that the appeal should not be maintainable in Panaji, citing the Supreme Court's decision in 'PCIT Vs ABC Paper Ltd.' and the ITAT's standing orders. The tribunal, after considering the submissions and relevant legal provisions, concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 473499 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: WT(D)
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 30-09-2023
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT Vs ABC Paper Ltd. [2022, 447 ITR 1 (SC)]
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1963
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GURUKUMAR SOMPALLE 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. 168/PAN2023 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Monappa S Shetty Pilikuru House, Nr. Krishnapura, Mata, Suratkal, Karnataka. PAN:CVLPS1817D . . . . . . . Appellant V/s Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mangalore . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee by : None for the assessee Revenue by : Mr Gurukumar Sompalle [‘Ld. DR’] Date of conclusive Hearing : 05/12/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 10/12/2024 ORDER PER GD. PADMAHSHALI; This appeal is instituted by the assessee u/s 253(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1963 [‘the Act’ hereinafter] which challenges the first appellate order dt. 02/08/2023 passed by Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. NFAC’ hereinafter] u/s 250 of the Act anent to assessment year 2017-18 [‘AY’ hereinafter]. Monappa S Shetty Vs ITO ITA Nos.168/PAN/2023 ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 4 2. It emerges at the very outset from the Ld. DR’s submissions that; in this case the assessing officer who framed the respondents’ original assessment was the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mangalore of Uttara Kannada district of Karnataka State. It is contended that, the situs of the assessing officer who exercised the assessment jurisdiction over the appellant since falls outside the jurisdiction of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Benches Panaji, hence the present appeal of the assessee is not maintainable for adjudication before this bench. To drive home this contention the Ld. DR beside pressing into service the standing order of ITAT has also relied upon the judgement rendered in ‘PCIT Vs ABC Paper Ltd.’ [2022, 447 ITR 1 (SC)]. Per contra, there is nothing on record to dismantle the respondent’s former assertion and invalidate the effective standing order of the ITAT. 3. After rejecting the request for adjournment as unwarranted, we proceeded ex-parte u/r 24 of ITAT-Rules, 1963 and have heard the Ld. DR’s 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. Monappa S Shetty Vs ITO ITA Nos.168/PAN/2023 ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 4 4. 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. Underpinning 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. Subsequently vide order dt. 04/10/2002 the jurisdiction of this ITAT Panaji Bench, Panaji further amended by Monappa S Shetty Vs ITO ITA Nos.168/PAN/2023 ITAT-Panaji Page 4 of 4 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 case, the clinching factual position that, the situs of the assessing officer who framed the original assessment in appellant case was Mangalore 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 the present appeal of the appellant assessee irrespective of the fact that the assessee opted for Vivad-se-Vishwas-Scheme-V2 [in short ‘VSVA’] to settled the present dispute/litigation. In view thereof, we dismiss the present appeal in limine as ‘not-maintainable’ with a grant of leave to institute it before an appropriate bench of the Tribunal if for any reason the present dispute remains unsettled in VSVA-V2. 7. In result, the appeal 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: 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. "