RIDDHIMAN REALCON LLP (FORMERLY RIDDHIMAN REALCON PVT. LTD.,),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 9(3),, KOLKATA

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 12.06.2025 for the AY 2012-13. 2. The only issue pressed at the time of hearing is ground no.1, which is extracted below:-
“FOR THAT the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC failed to appreciate that none of the conditions precedents existed for and/or were fulfilled by the Ld.
Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(3), Kolkata for his specious action of assuming juri iction to frame the assessment order U/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 de hors any notice U/s. 143(2) of the Act issued by him in the present facts and the specious assessment order dated 11.03.2015 framed U/s. 143(3) of the Act is therefore ab initio void, ultra vires, and ex-facie null in law.”
Riddhiman Realcon LLP; A.Y. 2012-13

without issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. The ld. AR therefore submitted the assessment framed dehors issuing notice 143(2) is nullity and bad in law. The ld. AR in defense of his argument relied don the decision of ARS Financial Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO in ITA
No. 816/KOL/2024 for A.Y. 2012-13 vide order dated 28.08.2025, wherein similar issue has been decided in favour of the assessee.
2.3. The ld. DR on the other hand relied heavily on the orders of the authorities below by submitting that the transfer of juri iction from one AO to another AO is an administrative matter as it falls within the same city. Therefore, argument of the ld. AR has no merit and may be brushed aside.
2.4. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued by ITO
Ward 41(2), Kolkata. The assessee objected to the issuance of notice by addressing a letter to the Commissioner of Income Tax, stating therein that the juri iction lies with ITO Ward 6(3), Kolkata, as assessee is a private limited company. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was transferred to ITO Ward 9(3), Kolkata, who framed the assessment without issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. In our opinion, the issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, is mandatory to be done by the ld. AO who framed the assessment, however, in this case no notice has been issued by the ITO Ward 9(3), Kolkata. The case of the assessee find support from the decision of ARS Financial
Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (supra), wherein the co-ordinate bench has held as under:-
“2.4. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the notice that the assessee filed the return of income for the Riddhiman Realcon LLP; A.Y. 2012-13

impugned assessment year on 29.11.2012, with ITO, Ward 4(1)/ Kol while the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued by ITO, Ward 34(1), Kolkata on 29.08.2013, a copy of which is available at page no.431 of the Paper Book. Thereafter the assessee wrote to the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-XII, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, Kolkata, informing that the juri iction of the assessee has been allotted to ITO Ward-34(1)/
Kolkata, whereas being a private limited company juri iction lies with ITO Ward 4(1),
Kol under CIT -II/Kol and accordingly, requested the commissioner to migrate the PAN in proper juri iction. The notice u/s 142(1) dated 10.02.2015, was issued by ITO
Ward 4(3), Kolkata calling upon the assessee to furnish the various details and information which were accordingly, submitted also before the ld. AO and the assessment was accordingly framed bt ITO Ward 4(3) Kolkata. Thus we note that the ITO, Ward 4(3), Kolkata has not issued the juri ictional notice u/s 143(2) of the Act which is a serious lapse on the part of the AO which goes to the root of the matter rendering the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act by the ld. AO to be nullity and invalid in the eyes of law. The case of the assessee s squarely covered by the following decisions namely i) PCIT Vs. Nopany& Sons (supra) and ii)PCIT Vs Cosmat
Traders (P) Ltd. (supra). In both the above decisions, the Hoin’ble Kolkata High Court has held that the assessment framed by the juri ictional AO without issuing notice
8u/s 143(2) of the Act is invalid while notice u/s 143(2) was issued by the non- juri ictional AO.Therefore we, accordingly, hold that the assessment framed by the AO Ward -4(3) Kolkata is invalid and is accordingly quashed. The ground no. 1 is allowed.”
2.5. The facts of the instant case are substantially similar as decided by the coordinate bench. We, therefore, respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate bench quash the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act on the ground that notice being issued u/s 143(2) of the Act by non-juri ictional Assessing Officer and not by the AO framing the assessment.
3. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 15.12.2025. (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY)
(RAJESH KUMAR)
(JUDICIAL MEMBER)
(ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)

Kolkata, Dated: 15.12.2025
Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS
Copy of the Order forwarded to:
1. The Appellant
Riddhiman Realcon LLP; A.Y. 2012-13

BY ORDER,//

Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst.