ITAT Hyderabad Dismissal of Appeal for Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction and Inability to Administratively Transfer to Cuttack Bench

The Legal Issue

Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has the power to transfer an appeal to another Bench at a different headquarters (e.g., Hyderabad to Cuttack) or whether an appeal filed in the wrong jurisdiction must be dismissed as non-maintainable.

Facts of the Case (A.Y. 2022-23)

The Filing: The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT Hyderabad Bench contesting an order related to Section 12AB (Registration of Trusts).
The Delay: The appeal was filed with a significant delay of 315 days. The assessee blamed their previous consultant for failing to communicate the original order.
The Jurisdictional Defect: The Registry pointed out that the assessee’s registered office was in Bhubaneswar. Under the law, territorial jurisdiction lies with the ITAT Cuttack Bench, not Hyderabad.
Assessee’s Request: Recognizing the error, the assessee requested the Hyderabad Bench to transfer the appeal to the Cuttack Bench.

The Decision

No Power to Transfer Between Headquarters: The Tribunal held that while the President of the ITAT has administrative powers under Section 255(5) and Rule 4 of the ITAT Rules to transfer cases, this power is typically limited to transferring appeals between multiple Benches at the same headquarters (e.g., from Hyderabad Bench ‘A’ to ‘B’).
Statutory Limitation: There is no specific provision in the Income-tax Act that allows a local Bench to unilaterally transfer an appeal to a different city/headquarters upon a request from the assessee.
Lack of Jurisdiction: Filing an appeal before a Bench that has no territorial jurisdiction is a fundamental legal flaw. The ITAT Hyderabad Bench ruled that it cannot adjudicate or even “transfer” a matter over which it never had a valid legal hold.
Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed as non-maintainable for lack of jurisdiction. [In favour of Revenue]

Key Takeaways

Location is Key: Always file your appeal based on the location of the Assessing Officer (AO) who passed the order. For trusts (Section 12AB), jurisdiction is usually tied to the location of the CIT (Exemptions) or the registered office.
Transfer Procedure: If a transfer is genuinely required for “ends of justice” (e.g., the office moved), the correct procedure is to file a Transfer Petition before the President of the ITAT (usually in Delhi/Mumbai) before the hearing, rather than asking a local Bench during the proceedings.
The “Fresh Filing” Risk: Once an appeal is dismissed as non-maintainable, the assessee must file a fresh appeal before the correct Bench (Cuttack). However, they will now face a massive hurdle in explaining the original delay plus the time wasted in the wrong jurisdiction.

IN THE ITAT HYDERABAD BENCH ‘A’

Udayanath Charitable Trust

Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption)^*

Ravish Sood, Judicial Member
and G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member

IT Appeal No.436 (Hyd) of 2025
[Assessment year 2022-23]

JANUARY 30, 2026

R. Mohan Kumar, Ads. AR for the Appellant. Ms. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR for the Respondent.

ORDER

Manjunatha G., Accountant Member.- This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), [Ld.CIT(E)], Hyderabad dated 25.02.2024

2. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under :

“1. CIT(Exemption), Hyd has rejected the application stating “It is observed from the submissions made by you in online application Form NO.10A, wrong section code was selected i.e. “02-Sub Clause (i) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A” which is not an appropriate section code in your case as you were not holding registration us/ 12A issued by the department on or before 31.03.2021. However, it is found that CPC has issued the Form 10AC 28.05.2021′ by granting the registration 02-Sub Clause (i) of clause (ac) of subsection (1) of section 12A Income Tax Act, 1961 for a period of 5 years commencing from AY 2022-23 to AY 2026-27 though you were not holding existing registration u/s 12A issued by the department, and you should have applied the Form 10A by opting the section code 12A(1)(ac)(vi) instead of 12A (1)(ac)(1). As such the present application for renewal of Form 10AB is infructuous, and is proposed to be rejected.

2. As the application in 10A was rejected only because of wrong section code 12A(1)(ac)((vi) instead of 12A(1)(ac) we request you to kindly look into and consider our application for registration.

3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee, filed an application in Form No.10AB, seeking registration u/s 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). During the proceedings before the Ld.CIT(E), Hyderabad, notice dated 29.10.2023 was issued, for which the assessee has furnished certain details. The Ld.CIT(E), Hyderabad, after considering the relevant application filed by the assessee and details submitted during the course of the proceedings observed that, in Form 10A, wrong section code was selected, i.e. “02-Sub Clause (i) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A” which is not an appropriate section code, as the assessee was not holding registration u/s 12A of the Act issued by the department on or before 31.03.2021. However, it is found that the CPC has issued the Form 10AC on 28.05.2021 and granted registration under Clause 02-Sub Clause (i) of clause (ac) of subsection (1) of section 12A of the Act for a period of 5 years commencing from A.Y.2022-23 to A.Y.2026-27, though the assessee was not holding existing registration u/s 12A of the Act. Therefore, issued a show cause notice dated 29.01.2024 and called upon the assessee to explain the discrepancy in application filed in Form 10AB. The assessee has not submitted any reply. Therefore, the Ld.CIT(E), Hyderabad rejected the application filed by the assessee in Form No.10AB, seeking registration u/s 12AB as infructuos vide order dated 25.02.2024.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(E), Hyderabad, the assessee has filed an appeal before ITAT, Hyderabad Benches on 11.03.2025. The Registry has issued a Defect Memo on the issue of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, for which the assessee has filed a condonation petition along with an affidavit and explained that the earlier consultant did not inform about the order passed by the Ld.CIT(E), Hyderabad, which is the reason for the delay in filing the appeal. The case was listed for hearing on various dates and on 10.12.2025, CA Aniruddha Abhyankar appeared and explained the case. During the course of hearing, it was informed to the learned counsel for the assessee that the jurisdiction of the assessee to file appeal before the Tribunal lies with ITAT, Cuttack Bench as the appeal filed by the assessee before the ITAT, Hyderabad Benches is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the assessee on the next date of hearing, filed a request letter for transfer of appeal to ITAT Cuttack Bench and accordingly, the case was finally adjourned to 28.01.2026. None appeared for the assessee, therefore, the case was adjourned to 29.01.2026. Once again, there was no representation from the assessee. Therefore, the Bench decided to hear the appeal on the basis of material available on record and also from the Ld.Sr.AR for the Revenue.

5. We have heard the Ld.Sr.AR for the Revenue and perused the relevant documents filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld.CIT(E), Hyderabad. As noted by the Registry, the appellant Trust, having registered office address at 731, Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar, Khorda 759001 and its jurisdiction to pursue the appeal lies with ITAT Cuttack Bench. Although the jurisdiction of the assessee lies with ITAT Cuttack Bench, but the assessee has filed appeal before the ITAT Hyderabad Benches. This fact was brought to the notice of the assessee through his counsel, for which, the learned counsel for the assessee has filed a letter requesting for transfer of the appeal. The application filed by the counsel for the assessee for transfer of the appeal has been perused and after considering the relevant application, we find that there is no provision under the Act for transfer of appeal from one Bench to another Bench, either by the Bench itself or by administrative action from the Registry. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the appeal filed by the assessee before the ITAT, Hyderabad Benches, without there being any valid jurisdiction is not maintainable. Further, we also note that there is a delay of 315 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, for which there is no explanation from the assessee, which can be considered as ‘sufficient cause’ for condonation of delay. Therefore, we, dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee as not maintainable, because, the appeal has been filed with wrong jurisdiction. However, liberty has been given to the assessee to file a fresh appeal with appropriate jurisdiction, i.e., ITAT, Cuttack Bench along with a petition for condonation of delay, explaining the reasons for the delay.

6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in terms of our observations given herein above.