Somnath Gupta Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata)
Assessee filed return on 12.10.2018 declaring income of ₹66.79 lakhs, which was processed u/s 143(1). Pursuant to survey u/s 133A, AO issued notice u/s 143(2) on 20.09.2019 & later framed assessment on 26.04.2021 u/s 144, assessing income at ₹2.81 crores. CIT(A) upheld the additions ex-parte.
Before Tribunal, Assessee argued that:
- The notice u/s 143(2) was invalid since it did not specify whether scrutiny was “limited”, “complete” or “manual”, contrary to CBDT Instruction F.No. 225/157/2017/ITA-II dated 23.06.2017.
- The notice was issued by ITO, Ward-33(4), Kolkata despite income exceeding ₹20 lakhs, which fell within jurisdiction of ACIT/DCIT as per CBDT Instruction No.1/2011 dated 31.01.2011.
- Reliance was placed on ITAT Kolkata decisions in Tapas Kumar Das Vs. ITO (11.03.2025) & Ashok Kumar Agarwal HUF Vs. ACIT (01.2025), & Calcutta HC decision in PCIT Vs. Shree Shoppers Ltd. (15.03.2023).
Tribunal held that the 143(2) notice was indeed defective as it failed to comply with CBDT instruction formats. It further observed that notice was issued by a non-jurisdictional AO, rendering the entire assessment void. Since jurisdictional defect strikes at the root, the consequential assessment u/s 144 was unsustainable.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT KOLKATA
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 26/03/2025 for the AY 2018-19.
