IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, GOA BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 373/PAN/2025 Assessment Year : 2025-26 Bagalkot University Mudhol Road, Jamkhandi, Bagalkot-587301 PAN : AAAJB1902 . . . . . . . Appellant V/s Income Tax Officer, Ward-1/2, Bagalkot. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee by : Mr Vijay Chhappar [‘Ld. AR’]

Revenue by : Mr Renga Rajan [‘Ld. DR’] Date of conclusive Hearing : 17/02/2026 Date of Pronouncement : 17/02/2026

ORDER

PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI;

This appeal of the assessee impugns DIN & Order No. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2025-26/1080239528(1) dt. 01/09/2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals-Exemption, Bengaluru [‘Ld. CIT(E)’ hereinafter] u/s 12A(1)/12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’ hereinafter] rejecting the application for grant of registration u/s 12AB of the Act.

2. At the outset of hearing, the rival parties have commonly stated that, although the order rejecting the grant of registration u/s 12AB of the Act was passed by Ld. CIT(E), however the assessing officer who holds the territorial jurisdictional over the assessee for passing order giving effect is Ld. ITO, Ward-1/2, Bagalkot within the range of Vijayapura District of Karnataka State. Therefore, it was averred by 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. The Ld. AR also solidified the Revenue submission. 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)] it is claimed by the Revenue that, in view of the rule 4 of ITAT-Rules this bench is not even empowered to transfer the appeal to the respective bench of ITAT. To buttress this proposition the Ld. DR Renga Rajan placed strong reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in ‘PCIT Vs MSP’ [2023, 454 ITR 280 (SC)] prayed that, the present appeal of the appellant assessee de-facto deserve to be dismissed in limine on the ground of jurisdiction as not maintainable.

3. We have heard rival party’s consensual submissions 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 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