Case Law Details
Anil Kumar Khetawat Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata)
Introduction: Delve into the legal complexities surrounding the case of Anil Kumar Khetawat vs. ACIT, where the assessment year 2015-16 becomes a focal point. The crux of the matter revolves around a jurisdictional flaw in the issuance of a notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. As a non-corporate resident of Kolkata with an income exceeding Rs. 20 lakhs, the jurisdictional intricacies play a pivotal role in determining the validity of the assessment proceedings.
Detailed Analysis: The case unfolds with Anil Kumar Khetawat, a non-corporate individual residing in Kolkata, declaring an income above Rs. 20 lakhs for the assessment year 2015-16. The CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011, dated 31.01.2011, clearly outlines the jurisdictional limits, designating ACIT/DCIT for assessments of non-corporate assessees in metro cities with incomes exceeding Rs. 20 lakhs.
However, the critical flaw surfaces when the notice for scrutiny under section 143(2) of the Act is issued by the ITO, Ward 34(2), Kolkata, instead of the designated ACIT/DCIT. This deviation from the CBDT Instruction raises questions about the validity of the notice and, subsequently, the assessment proceedings.
Drawing parallels with precedent, the case of Shri Sukumar Chandra Sahoo serves as a significant reference point. In this precedent, the Tribunal emphasized that a notice under section 143(2) issued by an authority lacking jurisdiction renders the assessment proceedings null and void. The ruling hinged on the CBDT Instruction and the consequential impact on the assessment process.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
