UMESH BASAVRAJ MAHABALSHETTI,BAGALKOT V. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIJAPUR RANGE, BIJAPUR

ITA 143/PAN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Umesh Basavraj Mahabalshetti against the order of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Bijapur Range, which was upheld by the first appellate authority under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appeal was heard by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji, which focused on the jurisdictional authority to hear the case. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal in Panaji did not have jurisdiction as the assessing officer was based in Vijayapura/Bijapur, outside the Tribunal's territorial jurisdiction. The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's assertion, citing the Supreme Court's decision in 'PCIT Vs ABC Papers Ltd.' and the Standing Order of the ITAT, leading to the dismissal of the appeal on jurisdictional grounds without addressing the merits of the case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 26294 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: WT(D)
• Next Hearing Date: 11-11-2024
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 03-06-2024
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT Vs ABC Paper Ltd. [2022, 447 ITR 1 (SC)]
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NAZEERA MOHAMMAD LD.
• Assessee Lawyers: M B PYATIL 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. 143/PAN/2024 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Umesh Basavraj Mahabalshetti Maitri Galli, Jamkhandi, Tal.: Jamkhandi, Dist. Bagalkot PAN:ABAPM2242B . . . . . . . Appellant V/s Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bijapur Range, Bijapur (Vijayapura) . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee by : Mr M B Pyatil [‘Ld. AR’] Revenue by : Mr Nazeera Mohammad [‘Ld. DR’] Date of conclusive Hearing : 11/11/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 12/11/2024 ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM; The present appeal is instituted challenging the DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1064853296(1) dt. 14/05/2024 passed by the first appellate authority [‘Ld. NFAC/CIT(A)’ hereinafter] u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’ hereinafter] which in turn upheld order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Act by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Bijapur Range, Bijapur[‘Ld. AO’ hereinafter] anent to assessment year 2011-12 [‘AY’ hereinafter] Umesh Basavraj Mahabalshetti Vs JCIT ITA Nos.143/PAN/2024 ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 4 2. It emerges at the very outset from the Ld. DR’s submission that; in this case of the assessing officer who framed the appellant’s assessment was Asstt./Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bijapur Range, Bijapur, which is now renamed as ‘Vijayapura’ district of Karnataka State. It is contended by the Revenue that, the situs of the assessing officer who exercised the assessment jurisdiction over the appellant assessee falls outside the jurisdiction of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Benches Panaji, hence the present appeal of the assessee against the impugned order 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 issued in the year 1971 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 Ld. AR could hardly dismantle the Revenue’s assertion with any contrary judicial precedents. 3. We have heard the rival submission on jurisdiction of this bench and subject to rule 18 of ITAT Rules, 1963 perused the material placed on records and considered the former issued in the light of settled position of law which was also forewarned to the parties present. Umesh Basavraj Mahabalshetti Vs JCIT ITA Nos.143/PAN/2024 ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 4 4. 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. 5. 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 (b) Belgaum alias Belgavi District of Karnataka State and (c) Uttara Kannada District of Karnataka State. Au contraire in the present case the situs of Ld. AO who framed the assessment was Vijayapura/Bijapur District of Karnataka State, which apparently outside the territorial jurisdiction determined by the standing order (supra). Umesh Basavraj Mahabalshetti Vs JCIT ITA Nos.143/PAN/2024 ITAT-Panaji Page 4 of 4 6. The clinching factual position that situs of the assessing officer who framed the assessment under challenge being Vijayapura/Bijapur which falls beyond the territorial jurisdiction of Panaji Tribunal/Benches, therefore this 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 appeals. In view thereof, without offering our comments on merits of the case we deem it fit to dismiss the 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 for the year under consideration. Ergo ordered accordingly. 7. In result, the appeal of the assessee 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: 12th 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. "