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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2173/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 December 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)5 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument, holding that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued by a non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer in violation of CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011. Consequently, the assessment framed under Section 143(3) was deemed invalid and quashed, citing prior High Court and Tribunal judgments on similar jurisdictional issues.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an income tax return for AY 2017-18 declaring a total income of Rs. 20,45,560/-. The case was selected for scrutiny, and a notice under Section 143(2) was issued by ITO Ward 29(3), Kolkata. The assessee challenged the subsequent assessment, contending that the notice was invalid as the ITO exceeded their pecuniary jurisdiction as per CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 for metro cities, which sets a limit of Rs. 20 lakhs for ITOs.

What were the issues?

Whether an assessment framed under Section 143(3) is invalid if the preceding notice under Section 143(2) was issued by an Income Tax Officer (ITO) exceeding their pecuniary jurisdiction as per CBDT instructions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 143(2),Section 139(1),Section 143(1),Section 119

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ruchika Sharma, DR
Hearing: 04.12.2025Pronounced: 18.12.2025

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, 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 2.4. In the present case, the assessee filed the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on 22.10.2017, disclosing total income of 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.

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →