What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice issued by the ACIT was in violation of CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 regarding pecuniary jurisdiction. Consequently, the assessment framed based on this notice was invalid and liable to be quashed.

The assessee's total income was ₹6,44,080, which was below ₹30 Lakhs. The notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act was issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT) instead of the jurisdictional Income Tax Officer (ITO).

What were the issues?

Whether a notice issued under Section 143(2) by an officer lacking pecuniary jurisdiction renders the subsequent assessment invalid.

Benigopal Daga vs DCIT | ITAT Kolkata 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Singh, AR

For Respondent: Shri Subrata Aich, DR

Hearing: 07.07.2026Pronounced: 14.07.2026

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)(hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 23.12.2025 for the AY 2014-15.

The assessee has raised additional ground which is as under:-

“1. That, on the facts of the case and in law, the A.O. being Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax who issued Notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 lacks jurisdiction over the assessee for the reason the total income of the assessee is below Rs.30 Lakhs. 2. That the Notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 31.08.2015 having been issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-45, Kolkata is without assuming the jurisdiction as per the CBDT's Instruction No.1/11, dated 31.01.2011 since as per the CBDT's Instruction No.1/11 dated 31.01.2011 the "CORPORATE RETURNS" upto Rs.30 Lakhs Income for ITOs in

At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the notice in this case has been issued by the ld. ACIT, Circle- 45, whereas the return of income as per the return of income filed on 31.10.2014, was ₹6,44,080/- and thereafter the assessment framed by the ITO Ward 43(1) Kolkata, dehors notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the assessment

In the present case, the assessee filed the return of income on 31.10.2014, disclosing total income of ₹6,44,180/-. I note that assessment is framed by the ld. ACIT, Circle-45, which is in violation of the CBDT Instruction No.1/2011 (F. No. 187/12/2010-IT(A-1), Dated 31.01.2011. Therefore, the said assessment has been issued by AO without issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Act which is invalid and cannot be sustained.

Similarly, the case of the assessee also find support from the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court Calcutta in case of PCIT Vs. Mintu Das in ITAT/167/2025, IA No. GA/1/2025, GA/2/2025 vide order dated 14.01.2026, wherein it has held as under:-

“We, after hearing the rival submissions of the parties and perusing the materials available on record note that the return of income of the assessee was of Rs.16,50,920/ which falls under the jurisdiction of the ITO, Ward- 28(2), Kolkata but notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued by ACIT, Circle-28, Kolkata and also the assessment order was duly framed by ACIT, Circle-28. Kolkata, which is clearly a violation of the jurisdictional mandate under CBDT Circular No. 1/2011 dated 31.01.2011. We note that this procedural irregularity rendered the assessment proceedings invalid and bad in law." This Court observes that the jurisdictional issue has rightly been determined by the learned Tribunal and no substantial questions of law arises in this appeal. In view of the above, we dismiss the appeal. Accordingly, the stay petition (GA/2/2025) is also dismissed.”

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on 14.07.2026.

Sd/- (RAJESH KUMAR) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 14.07.2026 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT DR, ITAT, 4. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy// Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata

BENIGOPAL DAGA,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 45, KOLKATA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments