BRIGHTMOON SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 25(1),, KOLKATA

ITA 3285/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 February 2026AY 2018-2019Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)8 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act was not in the prescribed format as per the CBDT circular. Therefore, the notice was invalid, and all subsequent proceedings, including the assessment order, were also invalid and void ab initio.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed its return of income for AY 2018-19, which was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer (AO) framed an assessment order, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the issues?

Whether the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was valid in light of the CBDT circular.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

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, “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA

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 17.03.2025 for the AY 2018-19. 2. At the outset, we note that the appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation by 214 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 bonafide and genuine reason, hence, we condone

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 139(1)

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →