What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer was invalid and quashed it because it was issued by a non-jurisdictional officer, violating CBDT instructions.

The assessee, engaged in dealing in shares and securities, filed a return of income declaring ₹1,06,261/-. The assessment was framed by the ACIT, Circle 40, Kolkata, which the assessee contended violated pecuniary jurisdiction rules.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer was invalid due to a violation of pecuniary jurisdiction as per CBDT instructions.

Kumar Mangalam Lamboria vs ACIT | ITAT Kolkata 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AR

For Respondent: Shri Manas Mondal, DR

Hearing: 11.06.2026Pronounced: 25.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM ITA No.2205/KOL/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) KUMAR MANGALAM LAMBORIA ACIT, CIRCLE 40, C/o. S.N. Ghosh & Income Tax Office, 3, Associates, advocates, 2, Government Place (W), Council Vs. Garstin place, 2 ndfloor, Suite House Street, 2 nd Floor, No.203, off hare street,, Kolkata-700001, West Bengal kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. ABZPL6669C Assessee by : Shri Somnath Ghosh, AR Revenue by : Shri Manas Mondal, DR Date of hearing: 11.06.2026 Date of pronouncement: 25.06.2026

O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 10.07.2025 for the AY 2016-17.

The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 22.09.2016, declaring total income at ₹ 1,06,261/- . The assessee is engaged in the business of dealing in shares and securities. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS). Notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) along with questionnaire were duly served upon the assessee which were replied by the assessee. Finally, the

At the outset, we note that the return of income was filed by the assessee declaring total income of ₹1,06,261/-, whereas the assessment has been framed by the ACIT, Circle 40, Kolkata which is in violation of pecuniary jurisdiction of the CBDT instruction No.1/2011 (F. No. 187/12/2010-IT(A-1), Dated 31.01.2011. According to the said instruction, the ITO has pecuniary jurisdiction where the income is upto 20 lacs in the Metro Cities and 15 lacs in Mofussil areas whereas the DC/AC have jurisdiction above 20 lacs in Metro cities and above 15 lacs in the Mofussil areas. The said instructions reads as under:-

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.

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

Order pronounced on 25.06.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 25.06.2026 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

KUMAR MANGALAM LAMBORIA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 40,, 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