Anderson Printing House Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata)
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Kolkata, considered an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, for Assessment Year 2016-17. Among the grounds raised, the assessee challenged the jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT) to issue notice under Section 143(2) and complete the assessment under Section 143(3). The Tribunal decided to examine this legal ground first, as it went to the root of the matter.
The assessee contended that its returned income was below ₹30 lakh and, under CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 dated 31 January 2011, jurisdiction over corporate assessees in metro cities with returned income up to ₹30 lakh vested with the Income Tax Officer (ITO). Since the assessment had been completed by the ACIT, the assessee argued that the ACIT lacked pecuniary jurisdiction. The Department did not dispute the factual position regarding the returned income but submitted that the ACIT, being in overall charge of the ward, was competent to complete the assessment.
The Tribunal examined Section 120 of the Income-tax Act, which permits the CBDT to assign jurisdiction based on territorial area, classes of persons, income or classes of income, and cases or classes of cases. Referring to CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011, the Tribunal observed that the Board had fixed pecuniary jurisdiction by prescribing different monetary limits for Income Tax Officers and Assistant Commissioners/Deputy Commissioners. Since the assessee’s returned income was below ₹30 lakh and the case related to a metro city, jurisdiction lay with the Income Tax Officer.
