TMI Blog2006 (1) TMI 223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 the matter. 4. The learned counsel for the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ck 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) 110 CTR (Kar) 101 : (1993) 202 ITR 360 (Kar) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (3) ---------------------------------------------------------- 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, Vishakhap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cellaneous application be put up before Sh. G.D. Agarwal, AM and Shri Hemant Sausarkar, JM for consideration and disposal. This is being issued as per direction of Hon'ble President." 11. In view of above special order, we hold that the Bench at Visakhapatnam consisting of Shri G.D. Agarwal and the undersigned, i.e., Shri Hemant Sausarkar had the jurisdiction to hear this miscellaneous petition. Therefore, we reject the assessee's preliminary objection that this Bench has no jurisdiction to hear the miscellaneous petition. 12. It is not in dispute that the office of the AO, who passed the assessment order under consideration is situated at Khammam, since return of income filed with Asstt. CIT, Khammam, being place of work 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 assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the Bench of the Tribunal depend upon the orders of President of the Tribunal, as per r. 4 of the ITAT Rules, 1963. The reference, no doubt, arose out of an appeal filed by the assessee before the Bench of the Tribunal at Bangalore. It is unnecessary to examine whether the said appeal was within the competence of the Bench of the Tribunal at Bangalore, it may be a case of a specific allotment of work by the President of the Tribunal under r. 4 referred to above; or, it may be a case of a curable mistake; it may also be a case of a total lack of jurisdiction. As this Court has no competence to consider this reference, it need not go into this question pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Bench of the Tribunal at Bangalore in 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 decid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
