INDRANI SIKDER,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 36(6),, KOLKATA

ITA 3284/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 February 2026AY 2017-20186 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, was not in consonance with the CBDT Instruction F.No. 225/157/2017/ITA-II dated 23.06.2017. Citing the decisions of co-ordinate benches, particularly Shib Nath Ghosh Vs. ITO, and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in UCO Bank and the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Amal Kumar Ghosh, the Tribunal found that CBDT instructions are mandatory and binding on income tax authorities. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the notice issued was invalid, and all subsequent assessment proceedings, including the assessment framed under Section 143(3), were also invalid and void ab initio. The Tribunal quashed the assessment. The issue regarding the validity of the notice under Section 143(2) was allowed in favour of the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Indrani Sikder, engaged in the import and sale of Damarbatu, filed her return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18 on 02.11.2017, declaring a total income of ₹10,44,240. The case was selected for complete scrutiny. A notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was issued on 27.09.2018, followed by a notice under Section 142(1) on 16.05.2019. The Assessing Officer (AO) framed an assessment under Section 143(3) on 03.12.2019, determining the total income at ₹37,23,410. The assessee's appeal to the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, was dismissed, confirming the AO's order. The assessee then filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Kolkata, which was initially barred by limitation by 61 days. The ITAT condoned the delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid for not being in consonance with CBDT Instruction F.No. 225/157/2017/ITA-II dated 23.06.2017, thereby rendering subsequent assessment proceedings void ab initio? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the notice issued under Section 143(2) was not in the prescribed format as per CBDT Instruction F.No. 225/157/2017/ITA-II dated 23.06.2017, making it invalid and consequently all subsequent proceedings void. The assessee relied on the decision of a co-ordinate bench in Shib Nath Ghosh Vs. ITO (ITA No. 1812/KOL/2024) which held that CBDT instructions are mandatory and binding, and failure to adhere to them renders proceedings invalid. The assessee also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in UCO Bank and the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Amal Kumar Ghosh (supra) regarding the binding nature of CBDT circulars. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue did not raise any objection regarding the condonation of delay in filing the appeal. No specific arguments were recorded by the Tribunal regarding the validity of the notice under Section 143(2).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 139(1),Section 143(3),Section 119

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AR
For Respondent: Shri Susanta Saha, DR
Hearing: 29.01.2026Pronounced: 17.02.2026

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 26.08.2025 for the AY 2017-18. 2. At the outset, we note that the appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation by 61 days. At the time of hearing the counsel of the assessee explained the reason for delay in filing the appeal. The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection in condoning the delay. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the delay is for bon

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 →