SAMANTA GOLD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 40(1),, KOLKATA

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 30.10.2025 for the AY 2016-17.

2.1. The facts in brief are that the notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 21.04.2023, was issued by the ITO Ward 40(1),

2.2. The ld. AR vehemently submitted that the notice was issued by the ITO-Ward 40(1) of the Act and the assessment was framed by the assessment unit, Income Tax Department. The ld. AR submitted that the notice issued by the ld. AO u/s 148 of the Act is against the pecuniary jurisdiction conferred by CBDT instruction No.1/2011 (F. No. 187/12/2010-IT(A-1), Dated 31.01.2011. The assessee also objected to the same vide letter dated 20th May, 2023, that CBDT instruction no. 1/2011, dated 31.01.2011, being F No.187/12/2010 it(A-i), the jurisdiction of the non-corporate assessee in metro cities having income above ₹20 lacs is vested with the ACIT/ DCIT and not with ITO and it was also submitted that the return of income was ₹99,41,070/-, which is more than ₹20 lacs and thus, the jurisdiction vested with the ACIT/ DCIT. However the objections of the assessee were not heeded to.

2.3. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find merit in the argument of the ld. AR that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is invalid and so is the consequent assessment framed on the ground of being in violation of pecuniary jurisdiction of the CBDT instruction No.1/2011 (F. No. 187/12/2010-IT(A-1),

2.3.1. In the present case, the assessee filed the return of income, disclosing total income of ₹/- 99,41,070/-. We note that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued by the ITO

2.3.2. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also relying on the above decisions, we hold that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act and consequent assessment framed are invalid and accordingly quashed. The ground no.3 is allowed.

3.1. The facts in brief are that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 21.04.2023, which was complied with by the assessee vide letter dated 20.05.2023, stating therein that return filed on 29.09.2016, may kindly be treated as return filed in compliance to notice u/s 148 of the Act. The letter was filed / uploaded on 20.05.2023. However, the ld. AO noted in the assessment order that in response to notice issued u/s 148 of the Act the assessee has not filed any return of income and in assessment order itself page no.2 and 3, it is apparent that notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was not issued.

3.2. In this background, we note that the issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is mandatory once the assessee has complied with the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. In the present case the assessee filed the letter dated 20.03.2023, submitting before the ld. AO that the return filed originally may kindly be treated as return filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. In our opinion, the assessment framed by the ld. AO sans notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is invalid and cannot be sustained. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of the coordinate bench in the case of Chandrani Commotrade Private Ltd. Vs ITO W-13(1) Kolkata ITA No. 665/Kol/2025 dated 5.3.2026 wherein it has been held as under:

Order pronounced on 20.05.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 20.05.2026 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