ANITA BASAK,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 30(2), KOLKATA

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kolkata-20 (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 30.06.2025 for the AY 2017-18. 2. At the time of hearing, the assessee pressed ground no.2 which is extracted below:-
“2. FOR THAT the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Kolkata-20 acted unlawfully in upholding the impugned assessment order framed u/s. 143(3) of the Act by the Ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward 30(2), Kolkata basing on an invalid notice dated
24-09-2018 issued u/s. 143(2) of the Act in contravention to the C.B.D.T. Instruction F.
No. 225/157/2017/ITA-II Dated 23-06-2017 and the specious action on that account is absolutely arbitrary. unwarranted, and perverse.”
2.1. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on 22.10.2017, declaring total income of ₹20,45,560/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act by CPC,
Anita Basak; 2017-18

Bangalore. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee, a copy of which is available at page no.103, which was issued by ITO Ward,
29(3) Kolkata. However , the assessment was framed by ITO Ward
30(2), Kolkata. The ld. AR vehemently submitted before us that since, the return of income of the assessee is above 20 lacs and assessee, who is based and assessed in Kolkata, which is a metro city, therefore, peculiar juri iction has not been followed by the authority while passing the order and accordingly. Therefore, the notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act is invalid and so is the consequent assessment framed. The ld. AR stated that notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated
24.09.2018, was issued by the ITO, Ward 29(3), Kolkata, which is in violation of pecuniary juri iction of the CBDT instruction No.1/2011
(F. No. 187/12/2010-IT(A-1), Dated 31.01.2011. According to the said instruction, the ITO has pecuniary juri iction where the income is upto 20 lacs in the Metro Cities and 15 lacs in Mofussil areas whereas the DC/AC have juri iction above 20 lacs in Metro cities and above 15
lacs in the Mofussil areas.
2.2. The ld. DR on the other hand, submitted that the income is marginal above ₹20 lacs and assessee has never challenged the issue before the ld. AO or before the ld. CIT (A). The ld. DR submitted that the CBDT circular does not overtake the legislation framed by the Parliament. The ld. DR submitted that this is an administrative mater and therefore, the appeal may be restored to the file of the AO. The ld. DR relied on the decisions of CIT vs. Shankar Lall Goenka [2025]
174 taxmann.com 31 (Gauhati) vide order dated 25-04-2025 & C.
Krishnan vs. ITO [2014] 52 taxmann.com 30 (Madras) dated 27-11-
2014. 2.3. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find merit in the argument of the ld. AR that Anita Basak; 2017-18

notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 24.09.2018, was issued by the ITO,
Ward 29(3), Kolkata, which is in violation of pecuniary juri iction of the CBDT instruction No.1/2011 (F. No. 187/12/2010-IT(A-1), Dated
31.01.2011. According to the said instruction, the ITO has pecuniary juri iction where the income is upto 20 lacs in the Metro Cities and 15 lacs in Mofussil areas whereas the DC/AC have juri iction above
20 lacs in Metro cities and above 15 lacs in the Mofussil areas. The said instructions reads as under:-

₹20,45,560/-. We note that notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 24.09.2018 by ITO ward 29(3), Kolkata which is in violation of the CBDT Instruction No.1/2011 (F. No. 187/12/2010-IT(A-1), Dated
31.01.2011. Therefore, the said notice has been issued by non- juri ictional AO while the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dehors the mandatory notice u/s 142 of the Act by ITO Ward 30(2)
Kolkata which is invalid and cannot be sustained. The case of the assessee find support from the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High
Court in the case of PCIT vs. M/s Shree Shoppers Ltd. in ITAT 39/2023,
IA No. GA/1/2023, dated 15.03.2023, wherein the Hon'ble Court has decided the issue in favour of the assessee by upholding the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal in ITA No. 865/KOL/2018 for A.Y. 2012-13
in case of M/s Shree Shoppers Ltd. Vs. DCIT has held that notice issued by ITO, Ward 39(4), Kolkata, u/s 143(2) of the Act was without valid juri iction and therefore the consequent assessment framed by the DCIT, circle 9(2), Kolkata is invalid. The Hon'ble Tribunal followed the decision of juri ictional High Court in case of PCIT vs. Nopany & Sons
(2022) 136 taxmann.com 414 (Cal), while passing the order.
2.5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also relying on the above decisions, we hold that the assessment framed by the AO Ward 30(2) Kolkata is invalid and is accordingly quashed.
3. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 18.12.2025. (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY)
(RAJESH KUMAR)
(JUDICIAL MEMBER)
(ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)

Kolkata, Dated: 18.12.2025
Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS
Anita Basak; 2017-18

Copy of the Order forwarded to:

BY ORDER,//

Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst.