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. 277/PAN/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Ala Samudra Meenugarara Prathamika Seva Sahakari Sanghan Malpe

1^st Floor, Federation Building, Malpe, Udupi-576106 PAN : AABAA4296L . . . . . . . Appellant V/s Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & TPS, Udupi. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee by : None for the assessee Revenue by : Mr S Manikandan [‘Ld. DR’]

सनु वाई की तारीख / Date of conclusive Hearing : 05/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 06/03/2025

ORDER

PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI;

This appeal of the assessee impugns order dt. 14/05/2024 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. NFAC’ hereinafter] u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’ hereinafter] which in turn arisen out of order of assessment dt. 17/03/2022 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act by National Faceless e-Assessment Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. NFeAC’ hereinafter] in relation to assessment year 2016-17 [‘AYs’ hereinafter].

2. The case was called twice; none appeared at the behest of the appellant, having regard to limited issue involved herein, we proceeded ex-

parte in the absence of appellant u/r 24 of ITAT-Rules, 1963.

3. The conjoint consideration of records and submissions of Ld. DR reveals that; although the original assessment in the case was framed in faceless regime, the assessing officer who holds the territorial jurisdictional for passing order giving effect is indeed the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & TPS, Udupi District of Karnataka [‘Ld. AO’ hereafter]. The Ld. DR therefore submitted that, the situs of the Ld. AO who exercises territorial jurisdiction over the assessee falls outside the territorial jurisdiction of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [‘ITAT’ hereafter], Panaji Benches Panaji. Reiterating the text from standing order of ITAT issued in the year 2002 and binding precedence laid in ‘PCIT Vs ABC Paper Ltd.’ [2022, 447 ITR 1 (SC)] the Ld. DR further averred that, in view of the rule 4 of ITAT-Rules this bench is not even entitled to transfer this appeal, therefore this appeal deserves to be dismissed in limine on the ground of jurisdiction.

4. Heard the Ld. DR and subject to rule 18 (supra) perused the material placed on records. We note that an identical issue came for a consideration in ‘DCIT Vs M/s Kushal Stone Crushers & M Sand Plant’ (ITA No 150/PAN/2023 dt. 26/11/2024) wherein the situs of the assessing officer who framed the assessment was Mangaluru. The Co-ordinate bench on the ground of jurisdiction vide para 5-7 has dismissed the appeal of the Revenue in limine as not-maintainable as;

“5. 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.

6. In aforestated context we note that, 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 li