PROFICIENT EQUITIES (P.) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 5(1),, KOLKATA

आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, JM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] in appeal no.NFAC/2012-13/10059716 dated 03.11.2025. 2. Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Kallol Mistry, Sr. DR, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

2 ITANo.08/Kol/2026 income of the assessee has been assessed at Rs.18,63,400/-. It was the submission that the assessee is a domestic company. It was the submission that the notice was issued u/s 148 on 20.03.20 by the ACIT, Circle-5(1), Kolkata. It was the submission that the Instruction issued by the CBDT in Instruction No.1/2011 dated 31.01.2011 prescribed that the income limits in regard to the issuance of the notices in respect of corporate returns upto Rs.30,00,000/- lies with ITOs and not the ACITs. The ld. AR drew my attention to the Instruction No.1/2011 dated 31.01.2011 which reads as under:

3 ITANo.08/Kol/2026

3.1 It was the submission that the notice having been issued u/s 148 by ACIT, Circle-5(1), Kolkata is in violation of the said CBDT Instruction is liable to be quashed and consequential assessment order is also liable to be quashed. The ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Ashok Devichand Jain v. UOI (2023) 452 ITR 43 (Bom.) (HC) reported in 452 ITR 43 wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in paras 4 & 5 held as follows:

4 ITANo.08/Kol/2026 “4. We have considered the affidavit in reply of one Mr. Suresh G. Kamble, ITO who had issued the notice under section 148 of the Act. Said Mr. Kamble, ITO, Ward 12(3)(1), Mumbai admits that such a defective notice has been issued but according to him. PAN of Petitioner was lying with ITO Ward (12)(3)(1), Mumbai and it was not feasible to migrate the PAN having returned of income exceeding Rs. 30 lakhs to the charge of DCIT, Circle 1203)(1), Mumbai, as the time available with the ITO 12(3)(1) was too short to migrate the PAN after obtaining administrative approval from the higher authorities by 31st March, 2019. 5. The notice under section 148 of the Act is jurisdictional notice and any inherent defect therein is not curable. In the facts of the case, notice having been issued by an officer who had no jurisdiction over the Petitioner, such notice in our view, has not been issued validly and is issued without authority in law.” 4. In reply, the ld. Sr. DR submitted that the PAN of the assessee was on that point of time with the ACIT, Circle-5(2), Kolkata and consequently, he had issued notice u/s 148. It was the submission that the assessment has been completed by the NFAC. On this point, the ld. AR submitted that the assessment order is dated 30.09.2021 was passed by NFAC. It was the submission that notification permitting the NFAC to pass assessment order was issued only on 29.03.2022 and the impugned assessment order has been passed much before the said notification. The said assessment order is invalid. The ld. AR drew my attention to the notification dated 29.03.2022 which reads as follows:

5 ITANo.08/Kol/2026

6 ITANo.08/Kol/2026 my attention to the various responses to the notices as per portal of the assessee which reads as follows:

7 ITANo.08/Kol/2026 prayed that the assessment order is liable to be quashed on account of both grounds being that the notice u/s 148 has been issued by the ACIT, Circle-5(2), Kolkata who has no monetary jurisdiction over the assessee in view of Instruction issued by the CBDT in Instruction No.1/2011 and on account of the fact that the assessment order was passed by the NFAC on 30.09.21 whereas the NFAC had been authorized to pass the assessment orders only by the Notification dated 29.03.2022. 7. In reply, the ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A) 8. I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts of the present case clearly shows that the returned income u/s 143(3) was Rs.15,82,770/- and the assessed income u/s 143(3) was Rs.18,63,400/-. The monetary limit for issuance of notices in respect of corporate returns was upto Rs.30,00,000/- in respect of ITOs and above Rs.30,00,000/-, the jurisdiction lies with ACIT/DCITs. The notice issued u/s 148 having been issued in the case of the assessee by the ACIT, Circle-5(2) who clearly did not have the monetary jurisdiction over the assessee for the issuance of notice u/s 148. Consequently, the notice issued u/s 148 is found to be invalid and the same stands quashed. My view is also supported by the principle laid down by the Bombay High Court in the case of Ashok Devichand Jain

8 ITANo.08/Kol/2026 vs. UOI referred to supra. As I have quashed the notice u/s 148, consequently the assessment order is quashed, I am not going into the issue of validity of assessment order passed by the NFAC on 30.09.21. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 06/05/2026.

Sd/- (GEORGE MATHAN) न्यधनयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 06/05/2026 RS आदेश की प्रनतललपप अग्रेपर्त/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant- 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent- 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A), आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण, कोलकाता / DR, 5. ITAT, Kolkata 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file.

सत्यापपत प्रतत //True Copy// आदेशधिुसधर/ BY ORDER,

(Assistant Registrar) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata