SOMA SAHA,NORTH TWENTY FOUR PARGANAS vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 49(1),, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2012/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 April 2026AY 2017-20186 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 143(2) was invalid because it was issued by a non-jurisdictional officer. Consequently, the assessment framed based on this invalid notice was also deemed invalid and quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return of income, and the case was selected for scrutiny. A notice under section 143(2) was issued by an Income Tax Officer, but the assessment was ultimately framed by an Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The assessee's income was below the threshold for the Assistant Commissioner's jurisdiction as per CBDT instructions.

What were the issues?

Whether an assessment framed based on a notice issued under section 143(2) by a non-jurisdictional officer is valid. Whether the pecuniary jurisdiction prescribed by CBDT instructions must be followed for issuing notices under section 143(2).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 127,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA

For Appellant: Shri SK Pransukhka, AR
For Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Hearing: 19.03.2026Pronounced: 22.04.2026

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 07.08.2025 for the AY 2017-18.

2.

The only issue pressed at the time of hearing by the Counsel of the assessee is against the non-issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act on 27.12.2019 and therefore the assessment framed dehors notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is bad in law and may be quashed.

3.

The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 31.10.2017,declaring total income at ₹16,36,360/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny for the reason that the cash was deposited during the demonetization period. Notice u/s 143(2) dated

4.

The ld. AR vehemently submitted before us that the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued by the ITO Ward 49(1), Kolkata, whereas the same should have been issued by ACIT, Circle 49(1), Kolkata as the return of income of the assessee was ₹16,36,360/- and the assessee is located in MotiganjBongaon, North 24 Parganas, West Bengal, India, which is a Mofussil area.The ld. AR stated that notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued by the ITO ward 49(1) whereas the same should have been issued by ACIT, Circle 49(1), Kolkata and consequent assessment was also framed by ACIT, 49(1), Kolkata, which is in violation of pecuniary jurisdiction of the CBDT instruction No.1/2011 (F. No. 187/12/2010-IT(A-1), Dated 31.01.2011. According to the said instruction, the ITO has pecuniary jurisdiction where the income is upto 20 lacs in the Metro Cities and 15 lacs in Mofussil areas whereas the DC/AC have jurisdiction above 20 lacs in Metro cities and above 15 lacs in the Mofussil areas.

4.2. 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 143(2) of the Act is invalid and so is the consequent assessment framed by ACIT, Circle 49(1), Kalkata, 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), Dated 31.01.2011. According to the said instruction, the ITO has pecuniary jurisdiction where the income is upto 20 lacs in the Metro Cities and 15 lacs in Mofussil areas whereas the DC/AC have jurisdiction above 20 lacs in Metro cities and above 15 lacs in the Mofussil areas. The said instructions reads as under:-

Intentionally left Blank

4.3. In the present case, the assessee filed the return of income, disclosing total income of ₹₹16,36,360/-. We note that the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued by the ITO ward 49(1) whereas the same should have been issued by ACIT, Circle 49(1), Kolkata and consequent assessment framed accordingly by the said authority which is in violation of the CBDT Instruction No.1/2011 (F. No. 187/12/2010-IT(A-1), Dated 31.01.2011. Therefore, the said notice has been issued by non-jurisdictional AO while the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dehors the mandatory notice u/s 143(2)

4.4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also relying on the above decisions, we hold that the assessment framed by ACIT, Circle 49(1), Kolkata, is invalid and accordingly quashed.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22.04.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 22.04.2026 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS

Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata fc

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →