SRI BALAJI METALS AND MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

IN THE INCOMETAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA Before ShriRajesh Kumar, Accountant Member and ShriPradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member ITA No.2784/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sri Balaji Metals and Minerals Private Limited.....................................................Appellant Room No.6, 3rd Floor, 23A, Netaji Subhas Kolkata- 700001. [PAN No. AAICS1619J] Vs. ACIT, Circle 5(1)..…………..…………………....……….Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, p-7, Chowringhee Square Kolkata- 700069 Appearances by: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCA, Adv., appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl.Sr. DR ,appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : March 26, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order : April 21 ,2026 ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 14.10.2025 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) passed under Section 147 r.w.s144 of the Assessment Year 2016-17 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. At the outset the Ld. AR challenges the very impugned order by taking legal ground that Ld. CIT(A)have erred that the ITO Circle 5 (1) Kolkata lacked jurisdiction over the assessee to take up the assessment proceedings due to pecuniary limit as prescribed in the CBDT instruction No. 1/2011 dated 31.01.2011. The Ld. AR submits that CIT(A) did not consider the case of the assessee on this issue and rejected the same on surmises and conjectures. The Ld. AR cited following decisions which is as follows:- 1. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-vs-Shree Shoppers Ltd.

ITA No.2784/Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2016-17 ITAT/39/2023; IT No. GA/1/2023 (Calcutta High Court)

ITA No.2784/Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2016-17 u/s 148A(b) of the I.T. Act. The assessment order reveal that in compliance to Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision w.r.t. Union of India & ors. Vs. Ashish Agarwal dt. 04/05/2022, notice u/s 148A(b) was issued to the appellant on 27.05.2022. In compliance thereto, appellant filed its reply on 31.05.2022 & and after considering the written submission filed by the appellant giving rebuttal to the query raised by the appellant in response to notice issued and subsequently issued notice is 148 of the LT. Act on 26.08 2022. As stated in 148(b) of the IT. Act. AO passed order u/s 148A/d) of the IT. Act on 28.08.2002 the assessment order appellant fled return of income on 15.12.2022 in response to said notice issued u/s 148 of the LT. Act dated 28.08.2022. Subsequently A initiated assessment proceedings by issue of statutory notices u/s 142(1) of the 17. Act and show-cause notices and in compliance appellant stated that during the year under consideration, appellant company was engaged in the business of dealing in steel products & dolomite and civil work. The appellant further admitted that it has received Rs. 2.85,80,000/- from M/s. Tanishi CommotradePvt. Ltd. during the relevant previous year which is towards opening receivable and it is mere a discharge of obligation against the outstanding dues of Rs. 7,14,82.419/-. Appellant submitted copy of confirmation, ledger, bank statement. The AO requested appellant to provide copy of all bills/vouchers along with transportation challan and other relevant details proving the genuineness of the alleged sale of dolomite and in response appellant stated that the sales have been made ex-godown (supplier itself) as such question of furnishing transportation receiptschallan does not arise. In order to confirm the claim of the appellant, AD issued notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act to M/s Tanishi Commotrade P Ltd. on 06.04.2023 calling for complete details in respect of the said transaction with supporting documentary evidences. However, M/s. Tanishi Commotrade P Ltd, did not reply to the above notice. In view of these facts, a show cause notice was issued by the AD to the appellant on 13.05.2023 proposing variation to the extent of Rs. 2.85,80.000- on account of accommodation entries on bogus billing from M/s. TanishiCommotrade P Ltd and variation to the extent of Rs. 2,85,800/- on account of unexplained commission expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act. Further, copy of information

ITA No.2784/Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2016-17 received from the DDIT(Inv), Unit-4(2), Kolkata along with copy of statement of relevant persons engaged in the above accommodation entries from Mis Tanishi Commotrade P Ltd. were also provided to the appellant vide the said show cause notice. In reply to the show cause notice, appellant furnished its submission by which appellant again objected to the reopening of the assessment proceedings. However, the same was not considered again by the AO since the same was already considered during the course of the proceedings u/s. 148A(d) of the Act. Further, the assessee stated that copy of sale bills, ledger, bank statement have been provided and the above transaction is genuine as during the year only liabilities of earlier year has been repaid and there is no sale or purchase during the year. This submission made by appellant was not found satisfactory to the AD and hence relying on the information gathered during the course of enquiry by the Investigation wing of the department and also information gathered during the course of enquiry conducted during assessment proceedings, AO held that appellant has failed to discharge its onus of proving the genuineness of the said transaction made with M/s. Tanishi CommotradePvt. Ltd. along with supporting documentary evidences. Accordingly amount of Rs.2,85,80,000/- received by the appellant from M/s. Tanishi Commotrade P Ltd. is treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the I.T. Act and an amount of Rs.2,85,800/- being 1% of the said amount, has been added u/s 69C of the I.T. Act as unexplained expenditures.

ITA No.2784/Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2016-17

On perusal of the above CBDT institution, we notice that in this case admittedly the assessee company had filed the return of income declaring the total income of Rs. 1,02,60,60/- which is below the threshold limit of Rs. 30,00,000/- for the corporate returns. We have gone through a decision passed by the Tribunal in the case R A Realtors Pvt. Ltd.(Supra) in which this issue has been elaborately dealt by following the order passed in Raghvendra Mohta which has been confirmed by the Hon’ble High court Kolkata. The relevant portion of the order passed in R A Realtors Pvt. Ltd is essential to reproduce here n below- We have gone through the cited decision and find that order passed by the tribunalin the case of Raghvendra Mohta vs. ACIT in ITA No.2416/KOL/2017 defying the cited decision of Ld. DR passed in the case of M/s Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology vs. DCIT (supra), and the decision of the Tribunal has further been confirmed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court Kolkata in ITAT/51/2025. It is important to reproduce the relevant portion of the order of the Tribunal and also the decision of the jurisdictional High Court which are as under: 5

ITA No.2784/Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2016-17

ITA No.2784/Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2016-17 the assessee notice u/s 143(2) has been issued by Ld. ACIT who is not the AO having competent jurisdiction. Since the notice has been issued by a non- jurisdictional AO i.e. ACIT, the said notice issued by him does not have any legal sanctity. Therefore, consequent to such an invalid notice, assessment framed thereafter by Ld. ACIT is also bad in law. 7. Per contra, Ld. Sr. DR could not rebut the aforesaid legal proposition based on aforesaid factual aspect put forth by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. The only assertion made by him was that the higher authority Le. ACIT had all the concurrent jurisdiction to exercise his powers which the Income Tax Officer has, who is an officer below the rank of ACIT. A written submission by the Ld. Sr. DR is also placed on record which deals with merit of the case only. 8. We have considered the rival contentions and gone through the records. Before proceeding further, it will be appropriate to refer to section 120 of the Act which, for the sake of ready reference, is reproduced as under: "Jurisdiction of income-tax authorities 120.(1) Income tax authorities shall exercise all or any of the powers and perform all or any of the functions Conferred on, or, as the case may be, assigned to such authorities by or under this Act in accordance with such directions as the Board may issue for the exercise of the powers and performance of the functions by all or any of those authorities. [Explanation.- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any income tax authority, being an authority higher in rank, may, if so directed by the Board, exercise the powers and perform the functions of the income-tax authority lower in rank and any such direction issued by the Board shall be deemed to be a direction issued under sub-section (1)]. (2) The directions of the Board under sub-section (1) may authorise any other income-tax authority to issue orders in writing for the exercise of the powers and performance of the functions by all or any of the other income tax authorities who are subordinate to it. (3) In issuing the directions or orders referred to in sub- sections (1) and (2), the Board or other income tax authority authorised by it may have regard to any one or more of the following criteria, namely:-

ITA No.2784/Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2016-17 (a) territorial area; (b) persons or classes of persons; (c) incomes or classes of income; and (d) cases or classes of cases 8.1. A perusal of the aforesaid statutory provision would reveal that the jurisdiction of Income Tax Authorities may be fixed not only in respect of territorial area but also having regard to a person or classes of persons and income or classes of income. Therefore, CBDT having regard to the income as per return has fixed the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officers for class of cases with prescribed pecuniary limits based on income declared by the assessees. 8.2. The Id. Counsel in this respect has relied upon the CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 (F.No. 187/12/2010-IT(A-I), for the sake of convenience is reproduced as under: "Instruction No.1/2011 (F.No. 187/12/2010-IT(A-I), DATED 31-1-2011 References have been received by the Board from a large number of taxpayers, especially from mofussil areas, that the existing monetary limits for assigning cases to ITOs and DCs/ACs is causing hardship to the taxpayers, as it results in transfer of their cases to a DC/AC who is located in a different station, which increases their cost of compliance. The Board had considered the matter and is of the opinion that the existing limits need to be revised to remove the abovementioned hardship. Income Declared (Mofussil Income declared (Metro cities) areas) ACs/DCs ITOs DCs/ACs Corporate Upto Rs. 20 Above Rs. 20 Upto Rs. 30 Above Rs. 30 returns lcs lacs lacs lacs Non-corporate Upto Rs. 15 Above Rs. 15 Upto Rs. 20 Above Rs. 20 returns lacs lacs lacs lacs

An increase in the monetary limits in also considered desirable in view of the increase in the scale of trade and industry since 2001, when the present income limits were introduced. It has therefore been decided to increase the monetary limits as under: 8

ITA No.2784/Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2016-17 Metro charges for the purpose of above instructions shall be Ahmedabad. Bangalore, Chennai, Delhi, Kolkata, Hyderabad Mumbai and Pune. The above instructions are issued in supersession of the earlier instructions and shall be applicable with effect from 1-4-2011.” 8.3. A perusal of the above provision of law along with the CBDT Instructions would show, in this case, the competent officer to proceed with the assessment byway of issue of notice u/ 143(2) of the Act was ITO, whereas, the notice u/s jurisdiction to issue the aforesaid notice. As has been held by the various courts 36. Kolkata who of the country including the Apex Court, the issuance of notice u/s 143/2) by the concerned Assessing Officer of a competent jurisdiction is mandatory to assume jurisdiction to proceed and frame assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. 8.4. Identical issue came up for consideration before the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bhagyalaxmi Conclave (P) Ltd. v. DCIT in IT Appeal No.2517/Kol/2019, dated 03-02-2021 wherein the Tribunal by further relying upon various other decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assessee and held that when the notice u/s 143(2) was issued by an officer who did not have jurisdiction to proceed with the assessment and the assessment was framed by the other officer who did not issue the notice u/s 143(2) before proceeding to frame the assessment, then such an assessment order was bad in law. 9. On the above observations, the short issue which falls for consideration in the instant case is whether there is valid notice issued u/s. 143(2) of the Act in commencing the scrutiny assessment and thereafter framing the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act. In this respect, it is not in dispute that on the date of selecting the case for scrutiny, the very basis for having jurisdiction over the assessee is the returned income which in the present case is less than the prescribed limit in CBDT Instruction no. 1/2011 and, therefore, the same lay with ITO. However, the notice u/s. 143(2) was issued by ACIT, Circle-36, Kolkata It is also a fact that subsequently the assessment has been framed by ACIT, Circle 36, Kolkata only. Since a valid notice u/s 143(2) has not been issued, the assessment proceeding carried

ITA No.2784/Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2016-17 thereafter can also not be held to be valid. We note that the assessment has been framed by the AO who is not having the prima facie jurisdiction to frame the impugned assessment, accordingly, the assessment is invalid. Case of the assessee finds support from the decision of Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Kolkata in the case of Rupasi Bangla Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. Va ITO in ITA No. 909/Kol/2023 dated 14.12.2023. 10. Ld. DR has referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DCIT Vs. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (2033) 151 taxmann.com 434 (SC) to contest that assessee did not raise objection in accordance with sec 124(3) within 30 days of issuance of service of notice u/s 143(2) and participated in the assessment proceedings. Therefore, he has no legal ground to challenge the assessment at this stage 10.1. On the contentions raised by the Id. Sr. DR on this aspect, we refer to section 124 of the Act which is extracted as under "Jurisdiction of Assessing Officers- 124. (1) Where by virtue of any direction or order issued under sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 120, the Assessing Officer has been vested with jurisdiction over any area, within the limits of such area, he shall have jurisdiction- (a) in respect of any person carrying on a business or profession, if the place at which he carries on his business or profession is situate within the area, or where his business or profession is carried on in more places than one, if the principal place of his business or profession is situate within the area, and (b) in respect of any other person residing within the area. (2) Where a question arises under this section as to whether an Assessing Officer has jurisdiction to assess any person, the question shall be determined by the Principal Director General or Director General or the (Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner); or where the question is one relating to areas within the jurisdiction of different Principal Director General or Director General] or [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner/or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner), by the (Principal Director General or Director

ITA No.2784/Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2016-17 General) or (Principal Chief Commissioners or Chief Commissioners) or (Principal Commissioner or Commissioner concerned or, if they are not in agreement, by the Board or by such (Principal Director General or Director Generall or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner) or [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner) as the Board may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify. (3) No person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer- (a) where he has made a return 1 [under sub-section (1) of section 115WD or under sub-section (1) of section 139), after the expiry of one month from the date on which he was served with a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 or 2 (sub-section (2) of section 115WE or sub-section (2) of section 143) or after the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier; (b) where he has made no such return, after the expiry of the time allowed by the notice under 3 /sub-section (2) of section 115WD or sub-section (1) of section 142 or under sub-section (1) of section 115WH or under section 148 for the making of the return or by the notice under the first proviso to section 115WF or under the first proviso to section 144] to show cause why the assessment should not be completed to the best of the judgment of the Assessing Officer, whichever is earlier, 4 ((c) where an action has been taken under section 132 or section 132A, after the expiry of one month from the date on which he was served with a notice under sub-section (1) of section 153A or sub-section (2) of section 153C or after the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier.) (4) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), 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 determination under sub-section (2) before the assessment is made. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section or in any direction or order issued under section 120, every Assessing Officer shall have all the powers conferred by or under this Act on an Assessing Officer in respect of the income accruing or arising or received within the area, if any,

ITA No.2784/Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2016-17 over which he has been vested with jurisdiction by virtue of the directions or orders issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 120. 11. From sub-section (1) of the aforesaid section, it is important to note that AO has to be vested with jurisdiction over any area as prescribed in clause (a) and (b) in sub-section (3), an assessee is not entitled to call for the jurisdiction of AO after the expiry of one month from the date on which it was served with a notice u/s. 143(2) Further, sub-section (5) states that every Assessing Officer shall have all the powers conferred by or under the Act on an Assessing Officer in respect of the income accruing or arising or received within the area over which he has been vested with jurisdiction by virtue of the directions or orders issued u/s. 120/1) and (2). 11.1. It is important to note that prima facie assumption of jurisdiction by the AO is to be first passed through the test prescribed in sub-section (1) In the case before us, the assessment has been framed u/s 143(3) by an AO whose jurisdiction is under challenge who at the threshold itself did not had the jurisdiction over the assessee for issuing notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act. In the present case, both the notice issued u/s. 143(2) and the assessment completed thereafter are by an officer who does not have jurisdiction in terms of CBDT Instruction no. 1/2011, owing to nil income return filed by the assessee. 12. It is noted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (supra) that jurisdiction changed after the returns were filed. Also, it noted that the High court had granted liberty to the concerned authority to issue appropriate notice. It further clarified that the Assessing Officer is free to complete the assessment if the assessment order is not issued. 12.1. On perusing the order of Hon'ble High court, it is noted that it did not express its opinion on the order of assessment and the demand u/s. 156. It dealt only with the issue of notice u/s. 143(2) for which also it was kept open for the competent authority to issue appropriate notice to the assessee as per law. 12.2. Facts in the case of Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (supra) are distinguishable from the facts of the present case as noted above.

ITA No.2784/Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2016-17 13. Accordingly, we allow the additional ground raised by the assessee and hold that the assessment order framed in the case of the assessee is without jurisdiction and is a nullity. The impugned assessment order is hereby quashed since the AO Le. ACIT, Circle-36, Kolkata framed the said assessment did not have jurisdiction over the assessee as mandated by CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011. Since the additional ground has been allowed and the assessment order being quashed, the grounds on merits raised by the assessee in Form 36 are not adjudicated upon since they have been rendered academic in nature. 14. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. 7.2 The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has confirmed the above order observing as under on an appeal filed by the revenue: We have heard Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Abhratosh Mazumder, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Aura Mazumder, learned advocate for the respondent. The assessee preferred appeal before the learned Tribunal challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata (CIT(A)] dated 26.9.2017. One of the grounds urged before the learned Tribunal was that the Assessing Officer, who passed the assessment order did not have jurisdiction over the case of the assessee and, therefore, the notice as well as the assessment order are bad in law. The learned Tribunal took note of the facts and circumstances of the case and found that the assessee filed its return of income declaring the income to be nil. Subsequently, notice under section 143(2) was issued on 10.9.2015 and notice under section 142(1) dated 13.6.2016 was issued along with the questionnaire. The assessee contended that the notices were without jurisdiction and relied upon section 120 of the Act. In this regard, the assessee referred to the notification issued by the CBDT in Instruction No.1 of 2011. The learned Tribunal took into consideration the facts of the case and found that the assessment has been framed by the Assessing Officer, who inherently lacks jurisdiction to do so. The learned Tribunal took note of the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of the learned Tribunal in the case of Bhagyalaxmi Conclave (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT

ITA No.2784/Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2016-17 dated 3.2.2021. Apart from other decisions and allowed the assessee's appeal, the revenue had challenged the order passed in the case of Bhagyalaxmi Conclave (P) Ltd. before this court in ITAT/221/2022 etc. and by a judgment reported in 2022 (12) TMI 1514, the appeal filed by the department was dismissed wherein one of the questions framed is identical to the substantial questions of law suggested by the revenue in the instant case. Thus, we find that the learned Tribunal was right in allowing the assessee appeal and setting aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer on the ground of lack of inherent jurisdiction. For the above reason, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue. 4. In the present case, it is evident from the notices issued u/s 148 that has been issued by ACIT Circle 5(1) Kol and as per the CBDT instructions, the pecuniary jurisdiction lies upon the ITO’s in the corporate returns which is up to Rs. 30,00,000/-. Keeping in view, the discussion and considering the facts of the case, we do not have any hesitation to hold that notice issued U/s 148 of the Act and the assessment proceeding carried out U/s 148(A)(d) of the Act are without jurisdiction and bad in law as per the CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011.Since the appeal of the assessee has been allowed on legal ground, So the other grounds of merit is academic in nature. In the result. The appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Kolkata, the April 21st , 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Rajesh Kumar] [Pradip Kumar Choubey] Accountant Member Judicial Member

DC 14

ITA No.2784/Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2016-17 Dated:. 21. 04.2026.

Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR)

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