9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (1) TMI 223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee filed an appeal before Visakhapatnam Bench on 22nd Feb., 2005. That the Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench disposed of the appeal on 26th April, 2005, vide ITA No. 136/Vizag/2005. That as per the standing order under the ITAT Rules, 1963, the jurisdiction of Visakhapatnam Bench extends only to districts of East Godavari, West Godavari, Guntur, Krishna, Srikakulam, Visakhapatnam and Vizianagram of Andhra Pradesh, Rest of the Districts of Andhra Pradesh are within the jurisdiction of Hyderabad Benches of the Tribunal. Thus, jurisdiction of Khammam District is with the Tribunal Hyderabad Bench. That as per cl. (iv) of the standing order under ITAT Rules, 1963, the jurisdiction of Bench will be determined not by the place of business or residence of assessee but by the location of the office of the AO. Undisputedly, the office of the AO was located in Khammam District, which is within the jurisdiction of Hyderabad Bench of Tribunal. He, therefore, submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench in ITA No. 136/Vizag/2005 was without jurisdiction and therefore, it should be recalled/cancelled and the matter may be placed before the Bench, which has jurisdiction over ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... administrative lapse and not the inherent lack of jurisdiction. 6. It is further, contended by the learned counsel that under s. 254(2), the Tribunal can rectify only the arithmetical and/or apparent mistake which is apparent from record. It has no power to recall its order except under the conditions prescribed in r. 24. That under r. 24, only an ex parte order can be recalled while the order under. consideration is not an ex parte order. That since there is no apparent mistake in the order of the Tribunal, s. 254(2) would not be applicable. 7. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the Revenue can have no grievance because they have already participated in the proceedings before the Tribunal at the time of hearing. Moreover, they have already filed appeal before the jurisdictional High Court, which in any case will remain the same whether the appeal is decided by the Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench or Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench. Thus, when the matter is going to be decided on merits by the jurisdictional High Court, it has become irrelevant which Bench of Tribunal passed the impugned order. He relied upon the following decisions: (i) CIT vs. Madanlal & Co. (1993) 11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... --------------------------------- 1 to 12 ........... ........... ---------------------------------------------------------- 13. Hyderabad Benches (2) Andhra Pradesh (excluding the districts of East Godavari, West Godavari, Guntur, Krishna, Srikakulam, Vishakhapatnam and Vizianagaram) ---------------------------------------------------------- 14 to 23 ........... ........... ---------------------------------------------------------- 24. Vishakhapatnam Bench (1) Districts of East Godavari, West Godavari, Guntur, Krishna, Srikakulam, Vishakhapatnam and Vizianagaram of Andhra Pradesh. ---------------------------------------------------------- 25. ........... ........... ---------------------------------------------------------- 2. ................. 3. ................. 4. The ordinary jurisdiction of the Bench will be determined not by the place of business or residence of the assessee but by the location of the office of the AO. 5. ............" 10. From the above, it is evident that the President has issued a standing order specifying the jurisdiction of various Benches. Of course, this order is subject to any special order, which may be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k at Sarpaka, District Khammam. The learned counsel for the assessee has vehemently contended that since September/October, 2004, the assessee has shifted its place of business from Khammam to Visakhapatnam. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, opposed his contention and claimed that the main place of business still continues at Khammam and in support of this, he referred to the letterhead of the assessee, which is filed in the assessee's paper book in which the head office is shown at Khammam. However, in our opinion, this controversy, i.e., whether the main place of business is at Khammam or shifted to Visakhapatnam is irrelevant because as per para 4 of the standing order reproduced by us in para 9, the jurisdiction of the Bench will be determined by the location of the office of the AO and not by the place of business or residence of the assessee. It is not in dispute that the location of the office of the AO was at Khammam and, therefore, in our opinion, the Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench, did not have the jurisdiction over such assessee. 13. It was vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the assessee that the Revenue had participated in the hea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entertaining the appeal of the assessee. Consequently, this reference to this Court is not valid and it cannot be considered by this Court; the reference is accordingly returned unanswered." 15. In our opinion, the ratio of the above decision would not support the case of the assessee but it will support the case of the Revenue. In the above case, the High Court has held that even if the assessee has shifted the business, the jurisdiction has to be decided on the basis of location of the assessing authority, which is easily identifiable. In this case, it is evident that the dispute is about the location of the place of business, but there is no dispute about the location of the place of the AO, who passed the order because the order was passed by the AG, Khammam. Their Lordships of Karnataka High Court refused to answer the reference because they did not have the jurisdiction considering the location of the assessing authority. Therefore, applying the ratio of above decision, considering the location of the assessing authority, the Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench, had no jurisdiction. 16. The facts in the case of India Glycols Ltd. & Anr., were also altogether different, where the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
