KIRAN DEVI PATNI,GUWAHATI vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 31,, KOLKATA

ITA 3004/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 October 2026AY 2013-201411 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the ITO Ward 31(3) Kolkata was invalid due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. The Tribunal relied on the fact that the assessee's returned income exceeded Rs. 20 Lakhs, which vested jurisdiction with the DCIT/ACIT Circle 31, not the ITO Ward 31(3). The Tribunal noted that the non-issuance of a valid notice under Section 143(2) is not a procedural irregularity but a fundamental defect that is not curable under Section 292BB of the Act. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in Asst. CIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon, stating that non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2) is not curable. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee had raised objections regarding the lack of valid service of notice under Section 143(2) in a letter dated 16.11.2009, which prevented the application of Section 292BB. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the notice and set aside all consequent proceedings. The appeal of the assessee was allowed on the legal issue of jurisdiction.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Kiran Devi Patni, filed an income tax return for Assessment Year 2013-14, declaring a total income of Rs. 36,54,060/-. The case was selected for scrutiny, and notices under Section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued. The Assessing Officer (AO) found the assessee's submissions untenable and treated Rs. 45,00,000/- as bogus, making an addition of Rs. 78,75,000/-. Further additions of Rs. 4,07,821/- were made on account of various expenses. The total assessed income was Rs. 1,19,37,421/-. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed. The assessee then filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT order is dated October 07, 2026.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the ITO Ward 31(3) Kolkata, who allegedly lacked pecuniary jurisdiction, is legally valid, rendering subsequent assessment proceedings void. 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in relying on the statements of brokers and key personnel without affording the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination, thereby violating principles of natural justice. 3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of the contribution made by the assessee under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Act, despite the donee institution having valid approval from the Central Government. Assessee's Contentions: - The AO lacked pecuniary jurisdiction, making the notice under Section 143(2) and the subsequent assessment void, citing CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 and various High Court and Supreme Court judgments including Rohit Baid vs ITO Ward 36(1) Kolkata, PCIT vs. Shree Shoppers Ltd., PCIT vs. Nopany & Sons, PCIT vs. Cosmat Traders (P) Ltd, ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon (SC), APE Power Pvt Ltd vs DCIT, and PCIT vs Indo Vision Commodities Ltd. - The CIT(A) erred by not allowing cross-examination of witnesses. - The CIT(A) erred in disallowing the deduction under Section 35(1)(ii) despite the donee institution's valid approval and the absence of a money trail linking the assessee to any alleged scheme. Revenue's Contentions: - The issue of jurisdiction was not raised before the lower authorities within 30 days of the notice, and therefore, cannot be raised at this stage.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 250,Section 35(1)(ii),Section 133A,Section 120,Section 292BB

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 28.10.2025 of the Office Of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), 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.

The brief facts of the case of the assessee is that return of income for the A.Y- 2013-14 was filed by disclo

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 →