Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction, ITAT dismisses Revenue appeal against Bank of Baroda [Read Order]

ITAT Mumbai Bench dismisses the appeal filed by the Revenue due to the lack of Territorial Jurisdiction. An appeal was filed by the Revenue, challenging the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act,1961 regarding to the Assessment Year 2010-11, 2016-17 and 2017-18.

The Respondent,here Bank of Baroda (e-Vijaya Bank ) is a public sector company and filed its return of income. The assessee’s case which was selected for the scrutiny and the assessment order was passed over the particular case by the Joint/Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Taxpayers Unit, Bangalore.

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), challenging the additions made by the  A.O. The impugned additions made by the  A.O was deleted by CIT (A), against which the Revenue has filed the appeal.

The Authorized Representative (AR) for the assessee represented by Shri S. Ananthan and Ms. R.Lalitha submitted that since the assessment order was passed by the AO situated in Bangalore, so the jurisdiction of the tribunal to decide the appeal also lies with the Bangalore Bench and not the Mumbai Bench.

In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ABC Papers Ltd. [2022]  the decision regarding the Territorial Jurisdiction has been reached, the Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue represented by Shri R. A. Dhyani conceded the same.

According to the Tribunal, it observed that the original assessment order was passed by the  A.O which Jurisdictional High Court would be the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. Based on the case of ABC Papers Ltd, it was held that appeal against every decision of ITAT shall lie only before the HC within whose jurisdiction the A.O passed the assessment order is situated, even if the case is transferred invoking power under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer has passed the judgment, shall continue to exercise jurisdiction of the appeal. This also included the appeals filed before the Tribunal.

From the above, it is made to be evident to the bench that the present appeal filed by the revenue can only be adjudicated by the Bangalore Bench. The relevant extract of the ABC Papers Ltd and Pr. CIT vs. MSPL Ltd. [2023] was also cited by the tribunal, which also reiterated the proposition laid down by Apex Court in the ABC Papers Ltd case.

The Bench observed that, it cannot be said that the High Court has committed any error in setting aside the order passed by the President of the ITAT transferring the appeals from the Bangalore Bench to the Mumbai Bench.The Bench is in complete agreement with the view taken by the High court. Therefore, the appeals were heard by the ITAT, Bangalore Bench.

The ITAT Mumbai Bench consisting of Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, AM and Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, JM observed that “As it is now a settled proposition of law that the jurisdiction of the ITAT in adjudicating an appeal would lie within the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer who had passed the assessment order which is the subject matter of appeal before the Tribunal, we, therefore, are inclined to dismiss these appeals filed by the Revenue with the liberty to the Revenue to file these appeals before the ITAT having jurisdiction over the assessing officer who had passed the assessment order in these cases, i.e., the Bangalore Bench. The delay in filing the appeal shall be condoned as if the assessee has filed the appeal in the first instance within the period of limitation”.

All the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed for statistical purposes. As the facts are identical in all the three appeals, the bench passed a consolidated order in all these appeals.

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates