VINOD B KULKARNI,MANAGULI V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, BELGAUM

ITA 155/PAN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves three appeals filed by different appellants against the orders of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubbali, Dharwad, and the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, concerning the assessment years 2017-18 and 2012-13. The primary legal issue was the jurisdiction of the ITAT Panaji Bench to hear these appeals, as the assessing officer's jurisdiction was outside Panaji. The Revenue contended that the appeals were not maintainable in Panaji based on the situs of the assessing officer and supported their argument with a Supreme Court judgment in 'PCIT Vs ABC Paper Ltd.' The appellants' counsel could not effectively challenge this jurisdictional assertion. Consequently, the ITAT Panaji dismissed the appeals without commenting on the merits, directing the appellants to approach the appropriate bench with jurisdiction over their cases.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 40501 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: WT(D)
• Next Hearing Date: 02-12-2024
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 27-06-2024
• 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: CAPT.PRADEEP ARYA; NAZEERA MOHAMMAD LD.
• Assessee Lawyers: PRATIBHA R LD.
• Keywords: Revision of order
• Section: 250; 263

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. 46 & 47 /PAN/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 1. Pratapchand Pukhraj And Company Kirana Merchant, Kirana Bazar, Vijayapura, Dist. Vijayapura-586101. PAN:AADFS9212M 2. Vanigota Sugar Trading Company Kirana Merchant, Kirana Bazar, Vijayapura, Dist. Vijayapura-586101 PAN:AAAFV8614K . . . . . . . Appellant V/s Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubbali, Dharwad. . . . . . . . Respondent And ITA Nos. 155/PAN/2024 Assessment Year : 2012-13 3. Vinod B Kulkarni Managuli, Tqbasavan Bagewadi, Vijayapura, Dist. Vijayapura-586122 PAN:BCNPK8009F . . . . . . . Appellant V/s Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Vijayapura. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee by : For 1 & 2 Adv Pratibha R [‘Ld. AR’] For 3 None Revenue by : Capt. Pradeep Arya & Mr Nazeera Mohammad [‘Ld. DR’] Date of conclusive Hearing : 02/12/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 05/12/2024 ITA Nos.46 & 47/PAN/2022 and 155/PAN/2024 ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 4 ORDER PER BENCH; Out of present bunch of three appeals, first two appeals instituted by different assessee are directed against respective orders of revision passed by the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubbali, Dharwad [‘Ld. PCIT’ hereinafter] u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’ hereinafter] and the later appeal filed by the assessee impugns the order 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] 2. It emerges at the very outset from the Ld. DR’s common submissions that; in these three appeals/cases the assessing officer who framed the appellant’s original assessments was the Income Tax Officer, Bijapur which is now renamed as ‘Vijayapura’ district of Karnataka State. Therefore it is commonly contended by the Revenue that, the situs of the assessing officer who exercised the assessment jurisdiction over these three appellants falls outside the jurisdiction of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Benches Panaji, hence these appeals are not maintainable for adjudication before this bench. To drive home this contention the Ld. DRs beside pressing into service the standing order of ITAT have also ITA Nos.46 & 47/PAN/2022 and 155/PAN/2024 ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 4 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 Adv Pratibha could hardly dismantle & controvert Revenue’s assertion. 3. 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. 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. ITA Nos.46 & 47/PAN/2022 and 155/PAN/2024 ITAT-Panaji Page 4 of 4 5. The jurisdiction of this ITAT Panaji Benches, Panaji which is limited to (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 cases the clinching factual position that situs of the assessing officer who framed the respective original assessments was Vijayapura (Bijapur) which falls beyond the territorial jurisdiction of Panaji Tribunal/Benches. Therefore, ad-idem this Bench of the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to entertain the instant appeals going by the Standing Order (supra). In view thereof, without offering our comments on merits of these cases we deem fit to dismiss these appeals in limine as ‘not-maintainable’ with a grant of leave to institute them before an appropriate bench of the Tribunal which in law exercises jurisdiction over the respective AO’s who framed the respective original assessments. Ordered accordingly. 6. In result, these three 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: 05th 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. "