GAUTAM PRAMANIK,TWENTY FOUR PGS. SOUTH vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 26(1), KOLKATA

ITA 2093/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 October 2026AY 2017-201810 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued by the ITO, whereas the assessment order was passed by the ACIT, Circle-26(1), Kolkata. The Tribunal noted that the income declared by the assessee was below Rs. 15 lakhs. Relying on the decision of the Kolkata Tribunal in ITA No. 3004/KOL/2025 (Kiran Devi Patni) and the Kolkata High Court's decision in PCIT Vs M/s Nopany & Sons, the Tribunal found that the notice issued by the ITO was invalid and consequently quashed it. Since the notice was quashed, all consequent proceedings were set aside. The Tribunal observed that the assessment order was passed by the ACIT, Circle-26(1), Kolkata, who lacked jurisdiction in view of CBDT Circulars. Therefore, the assessment framed was quashed, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed on the legal issue. The issue on merit was rendered academic. The ratio decidendi is that an assessment order passed pursuant to a notice issued by an officer without jurisdiction, or by an officer who subsequently lacks jurisdiction to pass the assessment order, is invalid and liable to be quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Gautam Pramanik, filed a return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18 declaring a total income of Rs. 12,99,000/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. During the proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed cash deposits totaling Rs. 12,88,92,801/- in a bank account and receipts from two proprietorship concerns. The AO issued a show-cause notice regarding an amount of Rs. 59,537,872/- as unexplained cash credit. The AO ultimately added Rs. 50,78,675/- to the assessee's income under Section 68. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed. The assessee then appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT noted that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued by the ITO, while the assessment order under Section 143(3) was passed by the ACIT, Circle-26(1), Kolkata, raising a jurisdictional issue.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, issued by the ITO, and the subsequent assessment order under Section 143(3) passed by the ACIT, Circle-26(1), Kolkata, who allegedly lacked jurisdiction, render the assessment order invalid? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 143(2) and Section 143(3)). Assessee's contention: The assessment order passed by an officer lacking jurisdiction is without authority of law, invalid, and bad in law. The notice under Section 143(2) was issued by the ITO, but the assessment order was passed by the ACIT, who did not have jurisdiction over the assessee. Revenue's contention: The case was within the jurisdiction of the concerned CIT(A), and therefore, the assessee has no locus standi to question the jurisdiction of the ACIT, Circle 26(1), Kolkata.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 143(3),Section 68

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 17.07.2025 of the Office of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed under Section 143(3) of the Assessment Year 2015-16 of the Income- Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

2.

The brief facts of the case of the

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 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →