2026 (2) TMI 857

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....6. 2. Brief facts of the case are that during the year under consideration, the assessee was involved in share trading and having Income from Share Trading & Other Sources. The assessee filed original return of Income for AY 2015-16 u/s 139 of Act on 07.09.2015 declaring total income at Rs. 6,47,970/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS to verify "suspicious sale transaction in shares (Penny Stock tab in ITS)" with penny stocks in this case. Notice u/s. 143(2) was issued on 19/09/2016 which was duly served on the assessee. Notice u/s. 142(1) along with questionnaire was issued on 28/02/2017. In response to the same, the assessee through her AR had filed her reply along with certain basic information as asked for. The same wa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n appeal before us. The ld. AR challenges the very impugned thereby submitting that the order passed by the Assessing Officer in fact has no jurisdiction to pass the order. The ld. AR submits that the assessee filed return of income with ACIT, Central Circle-3(1), Kolkata though the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee by Office of ITO, Ward-43(2), Kolkata and the assessee within five days from the issuance of the notice objected the very jurisdiction of ITO, Ward-43(2), Kolkata for issuing of the said notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. The ld. AR submits that without disposing of the objection of the assessee, the ITO, Ward-43(2), Kolkata wrongly proceeded to issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act and after conducting assessment ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n. He has placed reliance on the following decisions: 1. PCIT vs. Manish Jain in ITAT/82/2025 IA No.GA/2/2025 of Calcutta High Court 2. Raj Sheela Growth Fund (P) Ltd. vs. ITO [2024] 165 taxmann.com 182 (Delhi HC) 3. Kusum Goyal vs. ITO [2010] 329 ITR 283 (Cal) of Calcutta High Court 5. Contrary to that, the ld. DR supports the impugned order. 6. Before adverting to the issue raised by the assessee, it is pertinent to mention here that at the time of hearing of the case, the ld. DR sought 15 days' time to submit a written submission but still the department did not file any submission to counter the argument advanced by the Assessee. 7. We have perused the facts of the case and find that the assessee comp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se from the office of the Central Circle-3(1), Kolkata to the Office of the ITO, Ward-43(2), Kolkata. We also note that DCIT, Central Circle-3(1), Kolkata in disposing of the application filed by the assessee u/s 6 of Right to Information Act, 2005 has mentioned that copy of the order u/s 127 of the Act is very old and not traceable. There is no dispute that the department has failed to produce order u/s 127 of the Act in this case. It is also undisputed fact that the assessee had filed the return of income with Central Circle-3(1), Kolkata and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee by the Office of the ITO, Ward-43(2), Kolkata. We have perused the judicial pronouncements cited by the assessee and we find that the Hon'ble J....