SAGARMAL MALL,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 32,, KOLKATA

ITA 195/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 October 2026AY 2013-201415 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sagarmal Mall, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging an order dated 16.10.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for Assessment Year 2013-14. The appeal was filed with a delay of 16 days, which was condoned. The assessee's primary contention was that the assessment order dated 29.02.2016 was passed by a non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer (AO), the DCIT Circle-32, Kolkata, instead of the ITO, as the declared income was less than Rs. 20 lakhs. The assessee provided ITR acknowledgement showing a total income of Rs. 19,80,100/-, contradicting the assessment order's mention of Rs. 89,00,420/-. The revenue argued that this issue was not raised before the lower authorities.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the additional ground raised by the assessee. It held that the assessment order was passed by an officer who lacked jurisdiction, making it a nullity. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's total income for AY 2013-14 was Rs. 19,80,100/-, which is below the Rs. 20 lakh threshold specified in CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 for corporate returns. The assessment order was passed by the DCIT, Circle-32, Kolkata, who did not have the requisite jurisdiction as per the said instruction. The Tribunal relied on the decision in R A Realtors Pvt. Ltd., which followed Raghvendra Mohta and was confirmed by the Hon'ble Kolkata High Court. The Tribunal found that the facts in Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology were distinguishable. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed. Since the legal ground was allowed and the assessment order quashed, the grounds on merits were rendered academic and not adjudicated. The appeal of the assessee was allowed on the legal ground.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order passed by the DCIT, Circle-32, Kolkata, is bad in law due to lack of jurisdiction, considering the declared total income of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-14 was Rs. 19,80,100/-, which is below the threshold limit prescribed by CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 for corporate returns, and turns on Section 120 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The assessment order is void ab initio as it was passed by a non-jurisdictional AO. The assessee relies on CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011, which mandates that for income below Rs. 20 lakhs, the ITO should have jurisdiction, not the DCIT. The assessee cited decisions from the Hon'ble Kolkata High Court and ITAT, including Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shree Shoppers Ltd., R A Realtors Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, Rajroop Doshi vs. ITO, and Arjun Rishi vs. Income-tax Officer. Revenue's Contention: The issue of jurisdiction was not raised before the lower authorities. The revenue also argued that a higher authority like the ACIT has concurrent jurisdiction with the ITO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 120,Section 143(2),Section 143(3),Section 142(1),Section 156

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” 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 16.10.2025 of the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, Delhi passed under Section 143(3) of the Assessment Year 2013-14 of the Income- Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

2.

At the very outset, it appears from the report of th

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 120

All 181 judgments and leading authorities on Section 120 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →