What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 143(2) was without jurisdiction and therefore invalid, as the issuing officer lacked the required pecuniary jurisdiction as per CBDT instructions. Consequently, the assessment order was also deemed bad in law.

The assessee challenged an assessment order, arguing that the notice issued under Section 143(2) was invalid due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction by the issuing officer. The assessee's income was Rs. 46,94,520/-.

What were the issues?

Whether a notice issued under Section 143(2) by an Income Tax Officer lacking pecuniary jurisdiction is valid. The validity of the consequential assessment order.

Kishore Kumar Mohapatra, Bhadrak vs ITO | s.143(2) | ITAT Cuttack 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Mishra & B N Behera, ARs

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

Hearing: 14.05.2026Pronounced: 14.05.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.01/CTK/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Kishore Kumar Mohapatra ITO, Ward-Bhadrak, Bhadrak Vs At Kuansh, P.O/P.S/Dist- Bhadrak, Odisha-756100 (PAN: ABKPM8242M) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri P.K. Mishra & B N Behera, ARs Revenue by : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 14.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 14.05.2026 ORDER PER BENCH: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ADDL/JCIT(A)-1, Coimbatore [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] in appeal no.CIT(A), Cuttack/10656/2019-20 dated 23.12.2025 for the assessment year 2017-18.

Shri P.K. Mishra & B N Behera, ARs represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

It was submitted by the ld. AR that the return of income of the assessee clearly shows that the income of the assessee is Rs.46,94,520/- . It was the submission that in view of the Instruction issued by CBDT

ITA No.01/CTK/2026 No.1/2011 [F. NO. 187/12/2010-IT(A-D] dated 31.01.2011, the assessee being an individual and the assessee’s territorial area being Bhadrak, a Mofussil area and being a non-corporate return, the jurisdiction lies with ACIT/DCITs. The ld. AR drew our attention to the said CBDT Circular which reads as under:

3.1 It was the submission that the notice issued u/s. 143(2) of the Act dated 07.09.2018 by ITO, Ward, Bhadrak was bad in law on account of pecuniary jurisdiction. The said notice u/s 143(2) reads as follows:

ITA No.01/CTK/2026

3.2 It was the submission that as the notice has been issued by ITO, Ward-Bhadrak who does not have jurisdiction to issue such notice, the notice issued u/s.143(2) of the Act is bad in law and consequential assessment order is liable to be quashed.

In reply, ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A).

We have considered the rival submissions. CBDT vide its instruction No.1/2011 (supra) has issued specific instruction in regard to pecuniary jurisdiction. If the Sub-ordinate Officer was not competent to issue notice u/s.143(2) of the Act, it has to be issued by a higher authority. In the present case, admittedly, the Assessing Officer who has issued the notice u/s.143(2) 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 4

ITA No.01/CTK/2026 High Court in the case of Shree Shoppers in ITAT/39/2023, it is held that notice issued u/s.143(2) of the Act is without jurisdiction and the same is invalid and consequential assessments are also held as bad in law.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Kolkata, the 14th May, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Rajesh Kumar] [George Mathan] लेखा सदस्य/Accountant Member न्याययक सदस्य/Judicial Member

Dated: 14.05.2026. RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent – 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR),

//True copy// By order Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS

KISHORE KUMAR MOHAPATRA,BHADRAK vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK, BHADRAK

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