IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CIRCUIT BENCH, VARANASI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.135/VNS/2020 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Assessment Year: 2017-18 C.O.No.04/VNS/2021 (in I.T.A. No.135/VNS/2020)

Assessment Year: 2017-18 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Revenue by Shri Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT (D.R.)

Assessee by None Order u/s 255(4) of the I.T. Act PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA:A.M.

(A) In this case, there was difference of opinion between Hon'ble Judicial Member and Hon'ble Accountant Member. The Hon'ble Judicial Member referred the question of difference to Hon'ble Third Member, as under:

“1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Varanasi, Circuit Bench of the Tribunal having no jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal and CO arising from the impugned assessment order passed by ITO, Ward 5(2), Kolkata can go into the question of validity of the impugned orders i.e. assessment order and order of Ld. CIT(A) on the ground of the jurisdiction of the AO and Ld. CIT(A) or not ?

2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee can question the jurisdiction of the AO, in view of the provisions of section 124(3)(a) of the Income Tax Act or not ?

3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, ITO ward

5(2), Kolkata was having jurisdiction to pass the impugned assessment order or the issue is required to be set aside to the record of the Ld. CIT(A) as the same has not been adjudicated by the ld. CIT(A) ?

4. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.

CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition made by the AO u/s

69A of the Act or not ?

5. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.

CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of other payable s or not ?

(A.1) The Hon'ble Accountant Member referred the question of difference to the Hon'ble Third Member as under:

“1. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the correct jurisdiction of the assessee in the instant case, lies with Assessing Officer situated at Kolkatta or with the Assessing Officer situated at Varanasi ?

2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellate order passed by Id. CIT(A), Varanasi , is liable to be quashed being without jurisdiction , with liberty to assessee to file first appeal with jurisdictional Id. CIT(A) located at Kolkatta, or not?

3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case , Can the assessee in the instant case raise the jurisdictional issue of the AO, beyond the time stipulated u/s 124(3)(a) of the Act, or not?

4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, Can merely filing change of address in PAN data form with department, will entail change of jurisdiction from one State to another State, or it will require meeting the requirements of Section 124(1)(a) read with Section 124(2) of the Act, for which separate application is required to be filed and an enquiry is to be conducted by the Relevant Officers of the department of both the States as is contemplated u/s 124(2), or not?

5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, who was the jurisdictional AO of the assessee on the date of filing return of income and also while concluding assessment?

6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, , whether the appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A), Varanasi is sustainable in the eyes of law, keeping in view that the said appellate order was passed in violation of Section 250(1) and 250(2) of the 1961 Act as well in violation of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962?

7. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, is it fair and appropriate on the part of ITAT, Circuit Bench, Varanasi, to give any findings on the merits of the issues involved in this appea