TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 405
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner of Income Tax (A) erred in law as well as on facts of the case by confirming the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer of treated the 3 received amount of Rs. 15,00,063/-from M/s Marubhumi Enclave Pvt Ltd as accommodation entry and added back the same as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of The Income Tax Act. 4. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case by confirming the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer by treating the interest paid on the aforesaid alleged bogus loan as not allowable as a deduction under Section 36 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the tune of Rs. 1,16,506/-, and by adding the same back to the total income. 5. That the appellant craves to leave, add, amend or adduce 5 any of the grounds of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings." 2. The assessee has also filed additional grounds of appeal challenging the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee as its return of income was more than Rs. 30 lacs which is as under: "For that the assessing officer ITO Ward 4(4) Kolkata did not have jurisdiction over the case of the assessee as its returned incom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... placed notification No. S.O. 1466(E) [No. 18/2022/F. No. 370142/16/2022-TPL (Part 1) dated 29.03.2022, whereas the assessment was completed on 23.03.2022 by the NFAC which is much before the above notification issued, accordingly the assessment order passed by NFAC is beyond jurisdiction of the NFAC. 8. Since, the above legal grounds also raised by the Ld. Counsel is also legal in nature and therefore, admitting the grounds raised by the assessee. The Ld. Counsel submitted that on the first legal ground raised regarding the jurisdiction of the AO, ITO, Ward 4(4), Kolkata submitted that the notice issued by the AO Ward (4), Kolkata is without jurisdiction since the returned income filed by the assessee is more than Rs. 30 lacs which is here from the CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 in which it has been held as under: "7. In the present case the assessee is a corporate assessee situated in a metro city and having a returned income of Rs.30 lakh or above is mandatorily to be assessed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (DCIT) and not by an Income-tax Officer (ITO). In the present case, the returned income being above 30 lakh, the jurisdiction vested in the DCIT; therefore....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cs but the notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act has been issued by ITO, Ward-9(4), Kolkata. It is true that subsequently the assessment has been framed by DCIT, Circle-9(2), Kolkata but the point in dispute is that on date of issuing a notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, whether the ITO, Ward- 9(4), Kolkata was having a valid jurisdiction to issue such notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act." The above factual position recorded by the Tribunal is not in dispute. Therefore, we are of the clear view that the Tribunal rightly allowed the assessee's appeal and quashed the scrutiny proceedings as defect in issuance of notice is incurable as it goes to the root of the matter. Thus, we find no ground to differ with the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue (ITAT/39/2023) is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue. (b) The decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 5 Kolkata Versus Raghvendra Mohta 2025 (5) TMI 529 wherein it was held. 5. The assessee preferred appeal before the learned Tribunal challenging the order pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....satisfied with the assessment order, the assessee went in appeal before the Id. CIT(A), where, the Id. CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer's order without addressing the key contention regarding procedural irregularity in issuing of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, which is in violation of CBDT Circular No.1/2011. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal raising multiple grounds. However, the main contention of the assessee is that the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) of the Act was invalid and bad in law as it was framed by ACIT, Circle-28, Kolkata while notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued by him, was not proper on account of pecuniary jurisdiction. The assessee contended that CBDT Circular No. 1/2011 clearly mandates that cases with below 20 lacs falls under the jurisdiction of the ITO and not ACIT. In the present case of the assessee, return of income was filed for Rs. 16,50,920/-, which in fact lies with ITO, Ward-28(2), Kolkata, not with ACIT, Circle-28 who had issued notice u/s 143(2) and subsequently framed the assessment order. He submitted that this procedural lapse vitiated the assessment proceedings and made the asse....