KIRAN DEVI PATNI,GUWAHATI vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 31, , KOLKATA

0IN THE INCOMETAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH AT KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, AccountantMember and Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, JudicialMember ITA No.3078/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kiran Devi Patni, .………………………………….……….……Appellant Urban Grand, 2nd Floor, Danish Road, Pan Bazar Guwahati- 781001 [PAN: AFRPP9172N] vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 31, ………….…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata- 700071 Appearances by: Shri Vikash Surana, A.R., appeared on behalf of the appellant. Mrs. Santanu Ghosh, Sr. D.R., appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : April 07, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order : April 21 . , 2026 ORDER PerPradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.12.2016 of the Income Tax Department [‘CIT(A)’] passed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. "The appellant, Kiran, Devi Patni, a senior citizen, is the proprietor of Hi Tech Corporation trading in Electrical Equipment & allled items. The appellant filed the return under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 29th September, 2014 declaring total income of Rs. 59,71,960.00 The return was selected for scrutiny and notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and duly served on the assessée, In compliance with the said Notices the assessee filed various

ITA No.3078/Kol/2025 Assessment Year – 2014-15 details and documents in support of the aforesaid return of income. The books of accounts were produced and explained with reference to various details and OR or documents filed by the assessee. On 14.10.2016, the Appellant was served with a show-cause notice of even date asking the assessee company to show cause as to why the claim of the assessee under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act amounting to Rs 3,50,00,000/- shall not be treated as bogus. The assessee company submitted its reply vide letter dated 24th October, 2016 and submitted that the donation made by her and the weighted deduction claimed was in accordance with law and the same cannot be termed as bogus and asked for cross verification However, in spite of appearing for cross verification before the Ld Assessing Officer in which no one appeared from the institution's side, the Assessing Officer ignored the unimpeachable evidences furnished by the Appellant Company in support of the genuineness of the contribution of Rs 2,00,00,000/- made to the School of Human Genetics and Population Health and held that the assessee company made bogus donations. The Assessing Officer, on the basis of such finding disallowed the weighted deduction of Rs.3,50,00,000/- claimed by the Appellant under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. Also a sum of Rs. 24,00,000/- was added as unexplained expenditure under section 69C.

Aggrieved by the said order, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) wherein appeal of the assessee has been dismissed.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied the assessee preferred an appeal before us.

ITA No.3078/Kol/2025 Assessment Year – 2014-15 to be quashed. The Ld. AR submits that AO wise jurisdictional details of West Bengal and Sikkim region has been prescribed in which the territorial jurisdiction in the case of the assessee’s to issue notice is the ACIT Circle 31(Kol), but in the present case notice has been issued by ACIT Circle 52 Kol who has no jurisdiction. The Ld. AR has also filed the ITR return of the preceding year to establish that in the preceding years notice issued by the ACIT Range 31(Kol). He has brought following decision in support of his contention:-

(i) ITA No. 1735/ KOL/2025 (ii) ITA No. 2080/Kol/25 (iii) PCIT vs M.S Nopany & Sons passed in ITAT 58/2017 by the Hon’ble Kolkata High Court (iv) PCIT versus M/s Cosmat Traders Pvt. Ltd in ITA No. 78/2022 by the Kolkata High Court.

ITA No.3078/Kol/2025 Assessment Year – 2014-15 pin code mentioned in the documents filed by the assessee. We further find that assessee has also filed ITR return, computation of income. Even preceding year ITR & notice issued by Range 31 Kolkata. It is further important to mention here that assessee has been regularly assessed by ACIT Circle 31 Kolkata. Assessee has also filed the preceding year of ITR and notice issued U/s 143(2) which is enclosed at page 50 & 51 of its paper book that goes to establish that notice issued by range 31 Kolkata. We have gone through the order passed by the ITAT Kolkata in ITA No. 1735/Kol/2025. The order passed by the Kolkata Bench on this issue which is as belows:-

2.4. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued by ITO Ward 41(2), Kolkata. The assessee objected to the issuance of notice by addressing a letter to the Commissioner of Income Tax, stating therein that the jurisdiction lies with ITO Ward 6(3), Kolkata, as assessee is a private limited company. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was transferred to ITO Ward 9(3), Kolkata, who framed the assessment without issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. In our opinion, the issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, is mandatory to be done by the Id. AO who framed the assessment, however, in this case no notice has been issued by the ITO Ward 9(3), Kolkata. The case of the assessee find support from the decision of ARS Financial Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (supra), wherein the co-ordinate bench has held as under:- "2.4. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the notice that the assessee filed the return of income for the impugned assessment year on 29.11.2012, with ITO, Ward 4(1)/ Kol while the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued by ITO, Ward 34(1), Kolkata on 29.08.2013, a copy of which is available at page no.431 of the Paper Book. Thereafter the assessee wrote to the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-XII, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, Kolkata, informing that the jurisdiction of the assessee has been allotted to ITO Ward- 34(1)/Kolkata, whereas being a private limited company jurisdiction

ITA No.3078/Kol/2025 Assessment Year – 2014-15 lies with ITO Ward 4(1), Kol under CIT -II/Kol and accordingly, requested the commissioner to migrate the PAN in proper jurisdiction. The notice u/s 142(1) dated 10.02.2015, was issued by ITO Ward 4(3), Kolkata calling upon the assessee to furnish the various details and information which were accordingly, submitted also before the Id. AD and the assessment was accordingly framed bt ITO Ward 4(3) Kolkata. Thus we note that the ITO, Ward 4(3), Kolkata has not issued the jurisdictional notice u/s 143(2) of the Act which is a serious lapse on the part of the AO which goes to the root of the matter rendering the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act by the Id. AD to be nullity and invalid in the eyes of law. The case of the assessee s squarely covered by the following decisions namely 1) PCIT Vs. Nopany& Sons (supra) and ii)PCIT Vs Cosmat Traders (P) Ltd. (supra). In both the above decisions, the Holn'ble Kolkata High Court has held that the assessment framed by the jurisdictional AO without issuing notice 8u/s 143(2) of the Act is invalid while notice u/s 143(2) was issued by the non-Jurisdictional AO. Therefore we, accordingly, hold that the assessment framed by the AO Ward -4(3) Kolkata is invalid and is accordingly quashed. The ground no. I is allowed." 2.5. The facts of the instant case are substantially similar as decided by the coordinate bench. We, therefore, respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate bench quash the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act on the ground that notice being issued u/s 143(2) of the Act by non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer and not by the AO framing the assessment. 3. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 15.12.2025. 6. The facts of the present case are substantially similar as decided by the coordinate bench, so respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench we quashed the assessment framed U/s 143/(3) on the ground that notice issued U/s 143(2) by non-jurisdictional assessing officers. Accordingly, in the result of the appeal of the assessee has been allowed on legal issue. Kolkata, the 21st April , 2026. 5

ITA No.3078/Kol/2025 Assessment Year – 2014-15

Sd/- Sd/- [Rajesh Kumar] [Pradip Kumar Choubey] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated:. 21 .04.2026. DC 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