MEHERUNNIGER BEGAM,SURI, BIRBHUM vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 3,, SURI, BIRBHUM

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.1769/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Meherunniger Begam Vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Suri Tika Para, Behind Zilla School West Bengal-731101 Suri Birbhum, West Bengal-731101 [PAN: ADCPB2168B] APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Appellant by : Shri R.K. Singh, AR Respondent by : Shri Soumitra Ghosh, Add. CIT, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 07.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 13.07.2026 O R D E R PER LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This Appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [“the Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 14.06.2025 with DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1077040631(1) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”, for short] for the assessment years 2017-18 on the following Grounds of Appeal: - 1. For that the Orders passed by the lower authorities are arbitrary, erroneous, without proper reasons, invalid and bad-in-law, to the extent to which they are prejudicial to the interests of the appellant. 2. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in passing an ex-parte Order without affording the appellant proper and reasonable opportunity.

ITA No.1769/KOL/2025 Meherunniger Begam; A.Y: 2017-18 3. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC having found non-compliance to the Notices issued u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ought to have served the Notices in the manner as provided u/s 282 of the Act. 4. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in passing a cryptic Order and in dismissing the appeal of the appellant on alleged grounds. 5. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC ought to have adjudicated the Grounds of Appeal in the manner as provided u/s 250(6) of the Act. 6. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making the addition of Rs.49,74,500/- on alleged grounds. 7. For that the appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify, substitute, add to, abridge and/ or rescind any or all of the above grounds. The assessee has also filed an additional Grounds of Appeal which are as under: - “1. That, on the facts of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer lacks jurisdiction over the assessee for the reason the total income of the assessee is below Rs.15 Lakhs and hence, the DCIT lacks jurisdiction over the assessee. 2. That the Notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act both having been issued by the DCIT, Circle-3, Suri, is without assuming the jurisdiction as per the CBDT Instruction No.1/11, dated 31.01.2011. As per the CBDT Instruction No.1/11 dated 31.01.2011 the “NON- CORPORATE RETURNS” upto Rs.15 Laksh Income for ITOs in Mofussil areas from 01.04.2011 and in cases where income exceeds Rs.15 Lakhs the jurisdiction to assessee lies with the DC/AC of the Income Tax. The Notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act should/ must have been issued by the jurisdictional ITO. The action of the DCIT, Circle-3, Suri, issuing the notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) are illegal, bad-in-law and liable to be quashed.”

On going through the above additional grounds of appeal filed by the assessee, it is noticed that the issue raised in additional grounds of appeal is jurisdictional issue, for issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act.

ITA No.1769/KOL/2025 Meherunniger Begam; A.Y: 2017-18 Following the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC), we admit the additional grounds of appeal filed by the assessee and taking up for adjudication.

ITA No.1769/KOL/2025 Meherunniger Begam; A.Y: 2017-18 dated 31.01.2011, for the non-corporate income of Rs.15,00,000/-, income from ITOs in Mofussil areas from 01.04.2011 and in case where income assessed Rs.15,00,000/-, the jurisdiction to assess lies with ACIT/DCIT but in the case on hand, the notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) should have been issued by the jurisdictional ITO but not by the DCIT, Circle-3, Suri. The Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the return of income of the assessee for the current assessment year is Rs.12,76,327/- which is beyond jurisdiction.

ITA No.1769/KOL/2025 Meherunniger Begam; A.Y: 2017-18 the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 23.08.2018 with DIN No. ITBA/AST/S/143(2)/2018-19/1010938955(3) and u/s 142(1) of the Act as issued by the ACIT, Circle-3, Suri. In fact, in this case, the notice u/s 143(2) has been issued to the assessee which was not raised as per section 124(3)(a) of the Act. We are in agreement with the arguments advanced by the ld. DR observing that the assessee did not raise any objection within one month as specified in the section 124(3)(a) and participated in the assessment proceedings even before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the arguments of the ld. Counsel is hereby rejected. Our view is supported by the judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Harish Kumar Chhabada vs Pr. CIT reported in [2025] 179 taxmann.com 589 (Chhattisgarh) in which it has been held as under:-

ITA No.1769/KOL/2025 Meherunniger Begam; A.Y: 2017-18 satisfied with the correctness of the claim, refer the matter for determination under this sub-section before assessment is made." Thereafter, their Lordships considered and held at the end of para 7 as under: - "Thus, under s. 64(3) the question of determination as to the place of assessment only arises if an objection is taken by the assessee and the Income Tax Officer has any doubts as to the matter. But the determination is to be by the Commissioner of Income Tax or the Central Board of Revenue. The Act does not 'contemplate any other authority." 17. Section 124(4) of the IT Act provides that where an assessee calls in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer, then the Assessing Officer shall, if not satisfied with the correctness of the claim, refer the matter for adjudication under sub-section (2) before the assessment is made to the Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the Board by notification specifies. It necessarily excludes any other Court or authority. Complete machinery for determination of place of assessment or the authority for assessment is provided for under Section 124. 18. The scheme of the IT Act shows that no appeal in regard to the place of assessment is contemplated under the Act. Under Section 124 of the IT Act, a question as to the place of assessment, when it arises is determined by the Commissioner, by the Commissioners if more than one Commissioner is involved and then by the Board. The Supreme Court in Seth Teomal (supra) has quoted with approval a judgment of the Federal Court in the matter of Wallace Brothers & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1945] 13 ITR 39 (FC), the relevant extract of which is reproduced herein-below: - "16. The question then arises whether the objection as to the place of assessee i.e. by the Income Tax Officer of Calcutta could be challenged in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and then before the Appellate Tribunal. In our opinion it could not be. The scheme of the Act shows that no appeal in regard to the objection to the place of assessment is contemplated under the Act. Under proviso (iii) of Section 64(3) of the Act a question as to the place of assessment,

ITA No.1769/KOL/2025 Meherunniger Begam; A.Y: 2017-18 when it arises, is determined by the Commissioner. Any such order cannot be made a ground of appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under Section 30 of the Act which provides for appeals against orders of assessment and other orders enumerated in Section 30 but no appeals is there provided against orders made under Section 64(3). Similarly appeals to the Appellate Tribunal which lie under Section 33 of the Act also do not provide for any appeal on the question of the place of assessment. In Wallace Brother case [1945 FCR 65] at p. 79 Spens, C.J., after referring to Section 64(3) and the proviso thereto said : "These provisions clearly indicate that the matter is more one of administrative convenience than of jurisdiction and in any event it is not one for adjudication by the Court... This confirms us in the view that the scheme of the Act does not contemplate an objection as to the place of assessment being raised on an appeal against the assessment after the assessment has been made. As we have already pointed out, the objection was not raised in the present case even before the Appellate Income Tax Officer but only before the Appellate Tribunal." There is nothing in the Bidi Supply case [1956 SCR 267] which in any way detracts from the efficacy of the decision of the Federal Court in Wallace Brother case [1945 FCR 65]. We have already said that Bidi Supply case [1956 SCR 267] deals with the vires of Section 5(7A)." 19. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Federal Court in Wallace Bros. & Co. Ltd. (supra) followed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Seth Teomal (supra), further followed by the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Commissioner of Income- tax v. All India Children Care & Educational Development Society [2014] 41 taxmann.com 20 (Allahabad)/[2014] 221 Taxman 5 (Allahabad)/[2013] 357 ITR 134 (Allahabad), the ITAT has rightly declined to consider the question as to the place of assessment. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in the matter of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) v. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology [2023] 151 taxmann.com 434 (SC)/[2023] 293 Taxman 493 (SC)/[2023] 454 ITR 582 (SC) has clearly held that the assessee has to question the jurisdiction of

ITA No.1769/KOL/2025 Meherunniger Begam; A.Y: 2017-18 the Assessing Officer under Section 124(3)(a) within the stipulated time of 30 days from the date of receipt of notice under Section 142(1) and thereafter, interfered with the order of the High Court holding as under: - "1. The impugned order set asides the assessment for A.Y. 2014-2015 the ground that the jurisdictional officer had not adjudicated upon the returns. The jurisdiction had been changed after the returns were filed. However, the records also reveals that the assessee had participated pursuant to the notice issued under section 142(1) and had not questioned the jurisdiction of the assessing officer. Section 124(3)(a) of the Income-tax Act precludes the assessee from questioning the jurisdiction of the assessing officer, if he does not do so within 30 days of receipt of notice under section 142(1)." 20. The Delhi High Court in the matter of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shri Shyam Sunder Infrastructure (P) Ltd. 2015 SCC OnLine Del 7040 has held that facially, Section 124(3) of the IT Act stipulates a bar to any contention about lack of jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer, and observed as under: - "5... Facially, Section 124(3) stipulates a bar to any contention about lack of jurisdiction of an AO. It is not as if the provisions of the Act disable an assessee from contending that in the given circumstances the AO lacks jurisdiction; rather Section 124(3) limits the availability of those options at the threshold. The assessee upon receipt of notice of the kind mentioned in Clause (a) and (b) of sub- section 3 has the option to urge the question of jurisdiction; the expressed tenor and terms of the provisions clarify that such objections are to be articulated at the threshold or at the earlier points of time. The two points of time specified in Section 124(3)(a) are as under : (i) Within one month from the date of service of notice or; (ii) After completion of assessment - whichever is earlier."

ITA No.1769/KOL/2025 Meherunniger Begam; A.Y: 2017-18 21. As such, from the aforesaid discussion, it is quite vivid that the appellant/assessee was served with notice under Section 143(2) of the IT Act on 8-8-2013, which was served upon him on 21-8-2013 and he did not raise objection qua jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer till his appeal was decided by the CIT (Appeals) on 14-72016. The assessee also did not raise any objection regarding jurisdiction upon completion of his assessment. As such, the plea with regard to territorial jurisdiction of the ITO was barred by virtue of Section 124(3)(a) of the IT Act. Even otherwise, by the notification dated 15-11-2014, the territorial reallocation of wards at Raipur was undertaken and thus by operation of law, validly, the ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur has been conferred with the jurisdiction after reallocation of wards. Therefore, the ITAT is absolutely justified in not entertaining the question with regard to jurisdiction of the AO.

ITA No.1769/KOL/2025 Meherunniger Begam; A.Y: 2017-18 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 13.07.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (GEORGE MATHAN) (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 13.07.2026 DP, PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR)

//TRUE COPY//

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA