CHINMOY MONDAL,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, , BURDWAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1148/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 October 2025AY 2014-20155 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 that the assessee's declared income fell within the monetary limits for ITO jurisdiction as per CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011. Following the Bombay High Court's decision in Ashok Devichand Jain, the Tribunal held that the notice issued by the ACIT was without jurisdiction and consequently quashed the assessment framed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's assessment for AY 2014-15, initially completed under Section 143(3), was reopened by the ACIT by issuing a notice under Section 148 on 27.07.2022. The assessee challenged the validity of this notice and the subsequent assessment, contending that as per CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011, the jurisdiction for non-corporate returns with income up to ₹15 Lacs lies with the ITO, not the ACIT, and therefore, the ACIT lacked inherent jurisdiction.

What were the issues?

Whether the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax had the valid jurisdiction to issue a reopening notice under Section 148, given the assessee's declared income of ₹14,09,760/- and the specific CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 144,Section 148A(b),Section 148A(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AR
For Respondent: Shri Subrata Aich, DR
Hearing: 18.09.2025Pronounced: 15.10.2025

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 25.02.2025 for the AY 2014-15.

2.

During the course of hearing the assessee pressed ground no.2, which is extracted below: -

“2. FOR THAT the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC erred in upholding the validity of the impugned notice dated 27-07-2022 issued u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the consequential assessment order framed u/s. 147/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Id. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1. Burdwan in absolute infringement of the C.B.D.T.

4. The assessee challenged the said issuance of notice by the ACIT, Circle-1, Bardhaman and consequently passing the order by the same authority on the ground that same is in violation of CBDT instruction no.1/2011 (F.No.187/12/2010-IT(A-1), dated 31.01.2011, which provides that assessment shall be framed by the learned AO in accordance with aforesaid CBDT instruction.

5. Therefore, notice issued by the ld. JCIT is bad in law and so is the assessment framed u/s 147 read with section 144 of the Act. In defense of his argument the ld. AR relied on the decision of Ashok “2. The primary ground that has been raised is that the Income-tax Officer who issued the notice under section 148 of the Act, had no jurisdiction to issue such notice. According to Petitioner as per instruction No. 1/2011 dated 31st January, 2011 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, where income declared/returned by any Non-Corporate assessee is up to Rs. 20 lakhs, then the jurisdiction will be of ITO and where the income declared returned by a Non Corporate assessee is above Rs. 20 lakhs, the jurisdiction will be of DC/AC.

3.

Petitioner has filed return of income of about Rs. 64,34,663/-and therefore, the jurisdiction will be that of DC/AC and not ITO. Mr. Jain submitted that since notice under section 148 of the Act has been issued by ITO, and not by DC/AC that is by a person who did not have any jurisdiction over Petitioner, such notice was bad on the count of having been issued by an officer who had no authority in law to issue such notice.

4.

We have considered the affidavit in reply of one Mr. Suresh G. Kamble, ITO who had issued the notice under section 148 of the Act. Said Mr. Kamble, ITO, Ward 12(3)(1), Mumbai admits that such a defective notice has been issued but according to him, PAN of Petitioner was lying with ITO Ward (12)(3)(1), Mumbai and it was not feasible to migrate the PAN having returned of income exceeding Rs. 30 lakhs to the charge of DCIT, Circle 12(3)(1), Mumbai, as the time available with the ITO 12(3)(1) was too short to migrate the PAN after obtaining administrative approval from the higher authorities by 31st March, 2019.

5.

The notice under section 148 of the Act is jurisdictional notice and any inherent defect therein is not curable. In the facts of the case, notice having been issued by an officer who had no jurisdiction over the Petitioner, such notice in our view, has not been issued validly and is issued without authority in law.

6.

In the circumstances, we have no hesitation in setting aside the notice dated 30th March, 2019.

7. Consequently the order dated 18th November, 2019 rejecting Petitioner's objection is also quashed and set aside.

8. Petition disposed.

9. No order as to costs.”

7.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that in this case, the assessee declared total income at ₹14,09,760/- as per the return file don 30.10.2014. Thus, the jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act apparently lies with the ld. ITO and not with the ld. ACIT as provided in the CBDT instruction no.1/2011 (F.No.187/12/2010-IT(A-1), dated 31.01.2011. The said instruction is extracted below:

“Instruction No.1/2011 [F.No.187/12/2010-ΙΠ(A-1), DATED 31-1-2011 References have been received by the Board from a large number of taxpayers, especially from mofussil areas, that the existing monetary limits for assigning cases to ITOs and DCS/ACs is causing hardship to the taxpayers, as it results in transfer of their cases to a DC/AC who is located in a different station, which increases their cost of compliance. The Board had considered the matter and is of the opinion that the existing limits need to be revised to remove the abovementioned hardship. Income declared (mofussil areas) Income declared (metro cities) ITOs Acs/ DCs ITOs DCs/ Acs Corporate returns Upto ₹20 lcs Above ₹20 lacs Upto ₹30 lacs Above ₹30 lacs Non-corporate Upto ₹15 lacs Above ₹15 lacs Upto ₹20 lacs Above ₹20 lacs returns An increase in the monetary limits is also considered desirable in view of the increase in the scale of trade and industry since 2001, when the present income limits were introduced. It has therefore been decided to increase the monetary limits as under: Metro charges for the purpose of above instructions shall be Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Chennai, Delhi, Kolkata, Hyderabad, Mumbai and Pune. The above instructions are issued in supersession of the earlier instructions and shall be applicable with effect from 1-4-2011.

8.

The case of the assessee find support from the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Ashok Devichand Jain vs. Union

9.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 15.10.2025.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →