Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Panji
Vanigota Sugar Trading ... vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hubbali on 5 December, 2024
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI
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
ITAT-Panaji Page 1 of 4
ITA Nos.46 & 47/PAN/2022 and 155/PAN/2024
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 ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 4 ITA Nos.46 & 47/PAN/2022 and 155/PAN/2024 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.
ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 4
ITA Nos.46 & 47/PAN/2022 and 155/PAN/2024
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.
ITAT-Panaji Page 4 of 4