RAJROOP DOSHI,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 2(1),, KOLKATA

ITA 1838/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 January 2026AY 2017-201810 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessment order is bad in law due to the Assessing Officer lacking jurisdiction. The Tribunal noted that the returned income was ₹47,89,100 and the notice under Section 143(2) was issued by ITO Ward 2(3), Kolkata, who, according to CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011, did not have jurisdiction for income exceeding ₹20,00,000. The Tribunal found no valid order of transfer of jurisdiction under Section 127 of the Act. It relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Kusum Goyal, which held that even for intra-city transfers, statutory formalities, including issuing an order, are required. The Tribunal also referred to the Co-ordinate Bench decision in Amiya Gopal Dutta, which quashed an assessment passed in violation of CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011. The Tribunal clarified that Section 292BB of the Act, which deems notices valid if the assessee participates in proceedings, does not cure the complete absence of a notice emanating from the department or a notice issued by an officer without jurisdiction. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Rajroop Doshi, filed an appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2017-18. The assessee's return declared a total income of ₹47,89,100. The case was selected for scrutiny, and notices under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were issued by the ITO Ward 2(3), Kolkata. The assessment was framed by the same officer, resulting in additions of ₹63,41,000 and ₹8,00,000. The primary challenge was the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO) to frame the assessment, as the returned income exceeded ₹20,00,000, which, according to CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011, should have vested jurisdiction with the ACIT/DCIT. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed this objection, holding that it was not raised before the AO and was therefore waived.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order is valid when passed by an Assessing Officer (ITO Ward 2(3), Kolkata) who allegedly lacked jurisdiction, considering the assessee's returned income exceeded ₹20,00,000 as per CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011, and no valid transfer of jurisdiction under Section 127 of the Act was recorded. Assessee's contention: The assessment order is void and nullity as it was passed by an officer without jurisdiction, violating CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 and Section 127 of the Act. Reliance was placed on the jurisdictional High Court decision in Kusum Goyal and a Co-ordinate Bench decision in Amiya Gopal Dutta. Revenue's contention: The objection regarding jurisdiction was not raised before the AO, and thus stands waived under Section 124(3) of the Act. Alternatively, the issue may be set aside to the AO for curing the procedural defect, and Section 292BB of the Act applies as the assessee participated in the proceedings, deeming any notice duly served.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 124(3),Section 127(1),Section 127(2),Section 127(3),Section 119,Section 292BB,Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA

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

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, AR
For Respondent: Shri Sandip Sarkar, DR
Hearing: 09.12.2025Pronounced: 07.01.2026

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 29.07.2025 for the AY 2017-18. 2. The issue raised in ground no.1 is against the order of Id. CIT (A) upholding the validity of assessment order when the same was passed by the Id. AO having no juri iction over the assessee.

2.1.

The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income which was revised on 27.03.2018, declaring total income at 247,89,100/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) for examination of certain points n

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 →