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. 044 & 045/PAN/2025 Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 2017-18 Vivek Rajendra Bikarnakatte No. 1-24/1, Panama House, Kuloor, Kavoor, Panjimogaru, Mangaluru-575013.

PAN : AMSPB8241J . . . . . . . Appellant V/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee by : None for the assessee Revenue by : Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]

सनु वाई की तारीख / Date of conclusive Hearing : 07/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 07/04/2025

ORDER

PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI;

This twin appeals of the assessee impugns separate orders both dt. 22/01/2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals-2, Panaji [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ hereinafter] u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’ hereinafter] which in turn arisen out of separate orders of assessment both dt. 28/12/2018 passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 153A & 144 of the Act respectively by the Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru [‘Ld. AO’ hereinafter] in relation to assessment year 2014-15 & 2017-18 [‘AYs’

hereinafter].

2. The cases were called twice; none appeared at the behest of the appellant, having regard to limited issue involved herein, rejecting the application for withdrawal on respondent revenue’s request, we proceeded ex-parte in the absence of appellant u/r 24 of ITAT-Rules, 1963.

3. The conjoint consideration of material placed on records including letter of withdrawal dt. 05/04/2025 and submissions of Ld. DR it reveals that; the assessing officer who holds the territorial jurisdictional over the assessee was Ld. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru District of Karnataka. Therefore, it was averred by the Revenue 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 asserted that, in view of the rule 4 of ITAT-Rules this bench is not even empowered to transfer these appeals to the respective bench of ITAT. To buttress this proposition the respondent Revenue by placing strong reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in ‘PCIT Vs MSP’ [2023, 454 ITR 280 (SC)] prayed that, these appeals of the appellant assessee de-facto deserves to be dismissed in limine on the ground of jurisdiction as not maintainable.

4. We have 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 District of State of Karnataka therefore 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 contex