M/S. FASTFLOW VINTRADE PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 12(1), NOW CIRCLE 11(1),, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 244/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 July 2026AY 2012-138 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was without jurisdiction as the issuing officer did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction as per CBDT instructions. Consequently, the assessment order was also held to be bad in law.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return of income below the threshold limit for corporate assessees. A notice under Section 148 was issued by an ACIT, who the assessee argued lacked pecuniary jurisdiction. The assessee also raised an additional ground regarding the validity of the notice and the scope of reassessment.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the notice issued under Section 148 was valid considering the pecuniary jurisdiction of the issuing officer. The secondary issue concerned the scope of additions made during reassessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 143(1),Section 143(2),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D Shah, AR
For Respondent: Shri Pankaj Pandey, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Hearing: 13.07.2026Pronounced: 13.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.244/Kol/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

M/s Fastflow Vintrade Pvt. DCIT, Circle-12(1), Kolkata Ltd. Vs 5/2B, Ashutosh Chowdhury Avenue, Kol-700019. (PAN: AABCF4423G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri Miraj D Shah, AR Revenue by : Shri Pankaj Pandey, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 13.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 13.07.2026

ORDER Per George Mathan, JM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] in appeal no. CIT(A), Kolkata-4/11007/2019-20 dated 05.12.2024 for the assessment year 2012-13.

2.

Shri S Miraj D Shah, AR represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Pankaj Pandey, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

3.

The ld. AR has filed additional ground which reads as follows:

ITA No.244/Kol/2025

“1. For that the notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (if found valid) was without jurisdiction and hence the same should be quashed. 2. For that the issue for which the case was reopened was not added hence the Assessing Officer could not add any other issues. Thus, the addition made must be deleted.” 3.1 As the additional ground is purely legal in nature hence the same is admitted and taken up for adjudication.

4.

It was submitted by the ld. AR that the returned income of the assessee is only Rs.3,14,230/-. The ld. AR drew our attention to the intimation issued u/s 143(1) in the case of the assessee which is shown at page 112 of the paper-book, the same reads as follows:

ITA No.244/Kol/2025

5.

It was the submission that the notice issued u/s 148 which is placed at page 122 reads as follows:

ITA No.244/Kol/2025

6.

It was the submission that the notice u/s 148 has been issued by ACIT, Circle-12(1), Kolkata. It was the submission that the assessee is a

ITA No.244/Kol/2025

corporate assessee and upto 30 lakh, the jurisdiction lies with the ITO. The Ld AR further drew our attention to the Instruction issued by CBDT No.1/2011 [F. NO. 187/12/2010-IT(A-D] dated 31.01.2011, which read as follows:

3.2 The submission of the ld. AR is that the returned income of the assessee is Rs.3,14,230/- which is below the threshold limit of Rs.30,00,000/- for the "CORPORATE RETURNS" and notice 148 was

ITA No.244/Kol/2025

issued by ACIT, Circle-12(1), Kolkata which is invalid as the competent authority to issue such notices lies with ITOs of Income Tax. It was the submission that notice u/s.148 of the Act has been issued by the ACIT, Circle-12(1), Kolkata did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction and consequently notice u/s.148 of the Act is invalid and consequential assessment order is liable to be quashed. The ld. AR in this respect has drew our attention to decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in ITAT/39/2023 in the case of PCIT vs. M/s Shree Shoppers Ltd., wherein it was held as under:

“The short issue which falls for consideration in the instant case is whether there is valid notice issued under Section 143 (2) of the Act for commencing the Scrutiny assessment. The Tribunal has noted the facts and rendered a finding that on the date when the case was selected for scrutiny, the authority who issued the notice namely, the Income Tax Officer, Ward No.9 (4), Kolkala did not have jurisdiction and the jurisdiction was with the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. The following factual finding has been recorded by the Tribunal : "Therefore, the legal ground stands to be admitted and the same re1ates to invalid notice issued u/ 143(2) of the Act. It is a settled position of law that for carrying out the assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Act, the statutory requirement of serving of valid notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act is must and in absence thereof the subsequent proceedings become invalid. In the case of assessee, the facts are that the assessee has declared income of Rs.48,47,180/- in the e-return filed on 26.09.2012. For selecting the case for scrutiny notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act as issued by ITA, Ward-9(4), Kolkata dated 23.09.2013. The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT vide Instruction No.1 /2011 supra) revised the monetary limit for issuing notice by ITO/DCs/ACs. Through this instruction it stated that in case of metro cities in case of corporate declare income above Rs.30 1akh the jurisdiction of such corporate assessee will lie with the DCs/ACs. It is not in dispute chat as on the date of selecting the case for scrutiny, the very basis for having jurisdiction over the assessee is the returned income which was more than Rs.30 1akhs and the same was lying with the DCs/Acs but the notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act has been issued by ITO, Ward- 9(4), Ko1kata. It is true that subsequently the assessment has been framed by DCIT, Circle-9(2), Kolkata but the point in dispute is that on date of issuing a notice u/s. 143(2) of the At, whether the ITO,

ITA No.244/Kol/2025

ward-9(4), Kolkata was having a valid jurisdiction to issue such notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act.” 4. In reply, ld. Sr DR vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A).

5.

We have considered the rival submissions. CBDT vide its instruction No.1/2011 (supra) has issued specific instruction in regard to pecuniary jurisdiction. In the present case, admittedly, the Assessing Officer who has issued the notice u/s.148 of the Act did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction in view of the instruction issued by CBDT (supra). This being so, respectfully following the principles laid down by Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Shree Shoppers (supra), it is held that notice issued u/s.148 of the Act is without jurisdiction and the same is invalid and consequential assessments are also held as bad in law.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13/07/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Laxmi Prasad Sahu] [George Mathan] लेखा सदस्य/Accountant Member न्याययक सदस्य/Judicial Member

Dated: 13/07/2026 RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent – 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR),

ITA No.244/Kol/2025

//True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →