HARSHVARDHAN GOEL,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD 49(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 681/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 September 2026AY 2017-1810 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the issuance of the notice under Section 143(2) by the Assessing Officer who lacked pecuniary jurisdiction, as per CBDT Instruction No. 01/2011, rendered the notice invalid. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's declared income of Rs. 41,30,110/- for Assessment Year 2017-18 exceeded the Rs. 15 lacs limit for non-corporate returns in metro cities, which should have placed the jurisdiction with the ACIT, not the ITO. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Kolkata High Court in PCIT Vs M/S Shree Shoppers, which confirmed that an invalid notice under Section 143(2) goes to the root of the matter and makes the entire assessment proceeding void ab initio. Consequently, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) were set aside. The ratio decidendi is that a notice issued by an authority lacking territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction is fundamentally flawed and invalidates all subsequent proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Harshvardhan Goel, filed a return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18 declaring a total income of Rs. 41,30,110/-. The case was selected for scrutiny, and notices under Section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued. The assessee did not make proper compliance, leading the Assessing Officer (AO) to make additions of Rs. 26,22,267/- on account of undisclosed interest income and Rs. 3,23,46,528/- on account of unexplained ad hoc expenditure. The assessee's appeal before the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, challenged the impugned order dated 18.12.2025, which upheld the AO's assessment. The primary contention raised by the assessee before the ITAT was that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued by the ITO, Ward 49(4), Kolkata, who lacked pecuniary jurisdiction, as the declared income exceeded the limit for an ITO in a metro city.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in law, the notice issued under Section 143(2) by the Ld. ITO Ward 49(4), Kolkata, is without jurisdiction, rendering the assessment order invalid, considering CBDT Instruction No. 01/2011 which vests jurisdiction with the ACIT for non-corporate returns exceeding Rs. 15 lacs in metro cities. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that their declared income of Rs. 41,30,110/- for Assessment Year 2017-18 exceeded the monetary limit of Rs. 15 lacs for an ITO to have jurisdiction over non-corporate returns in metro cities as per CBDT Instruction No. 01/2011. Therefore, the notice issued by the ITO was without jurisdiction, making the subsequent assessment order invalid. They relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs CIT and the Hon'ble High Court in PCIT Vs M/S Shree Shoppers. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's representative (Sr. DR) supported the impugned order, submitting that this issue was not raised by the assessee before the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 18.12.2025 of the Office of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed under Section 144 of the Assessment Year 2017-18 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

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 →