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. 025/PAN/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Navodaya Education Trust, S. No. 1129/2A, Navodaya Education Complex, Mantralaya Rd., Navodaya Nagar, Raichur PAN : AAATN5719R . . . . . . . Applicant V/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Bellary. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee by : None for the assessee Revenue by : Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. DR’]

सनु वाई की तारीख / Date of conclusive Hearing : 28/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 28/01/2025

ORDER

PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM;

The present appeal of the assessee impugned the Order dt. 28/07/2021 passed by learned 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 rectification order dt. 29/06/2017 passed u/s 154 of the Act by the learned Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bellary [‘Ld. AO’ hereinafter] anent to assessment year

2016-17 [‘AY’ hereinafter]

2. The case was called twice; none appeared at the behest of appellant assessee, after a mindful consideration of limited issue involved, we deem it fit to proceed in the absence of appellant ex-parte u/r 24 of ITAT-Rules, 1963 and adjudicate the same with the able assistance from Ld. DR Capt.

Pradeep Arya. Recording the same, we advanced accordingly.

3. It emerges at the very outset from the records that; the assessing officer who framed the appellant’s assessment was Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bellary district of Karnataka State. It is brought to our notice that, the situs of the assessing officer who exercised the assessment jurisdiction over the assessee falls outside the jurisdiction of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Benches Panaji. The present appeal filed by the assessee is therefore sought to be dismissed by the Revenue as not maintainable. To solidify the legal position in relation to jurisdiction, the Ld. DR candidly assisted by taking us through the standing order of ITAT issued in the year 1971 and also the recent judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in ‘PCIT Vs ABC Paper Ltd.’ [2022, 447 ITR 1 (SC)].

4. We have heard the submissions on jurisdiction of this bench and subject to rule 18 (supra) perused the material placed on records and considered the issue in the light of settled position of law which was also forewarned to the parties present.

5. A similar issue of jurisdiction of this bench came for a consideration in ‘ACIT Vs Vishnukant C Bhutada’ (ITA 247/PAN/2019 dt. 06/01/2025) wherein the situs of the assessing officer who framed the assessment in that case was Bellary. After elaborate discussion, the co-ordinate bench dismissed the appeal of the revenue as not-maintainable. The relevant paragraphs for better understanding are reproduced herein below 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