CONTEMPORARY NEWS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA V. I.T.O., WARD - 7(1), KOLKATA

ITA 1653/KOL/2025

AI Insights

Contemporary News Pvt. Ltd. appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which had set aside the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) for AY 2012-13. The primary contention was the absence of a valid notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, which is crucial for the jurisdiction of the AO. The Tribunal examined the procedural validity of the notices issued and found discrepancies in the issuance and service of the notices, leading to the conclusion that the assessment was conducted without proper jurisdiction.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 835996 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 24-07-2025
• Other Referred Cases: ACIT Vs Hotel Blue Moon Hotels Limited (321 ITR 362), CIT Vs Laxman Das Khandelwal (108 taxmann.com 183)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KUMAR PATI
• Assessee Lawyers: AKKAL DUDHWEWALA
• Keywords: Set aside; Invalid notice; Unexplained cash credit; Block assessment; Procedural lapse
• Section: 144; 143(3); 142(1); 68

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM ITA No. 1653/KOL/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Contemporary News Pvt. Ltd. 3, Middle Road, Hastings, Kolkata-700022, West Bengal Vs. ITO Ward 7(1) Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata- 700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AABCC1661R Assessee by : Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, AR Revenue by : Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, DR Date of hearing: 12.01.2026 Date of pronouncement: 10.02.2026 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 13.11.2024 for the AY 2012-13. 2. At the outset, we observe that there is a delay of 190 days in filing the appeal by the assessee and in support of this, a condonation petition was filed along with an affidavit. It was stated in the condonation petition that the delay had occurred due to medical issues faced by the person in charge of the assessee and accordingly, the delay has been sought to be condoned. The ld. DR, on the other hand, did not oppose Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 ITA No. 1653/KOL/2025 Contemporary News Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 2012-13 the condonation of delay. Having considered the same, we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. In Ground No. 1, the assessee has challenged the validity of the assessment order passed u/s 144 of the Act dated 19.03.2015 due to absence of valid notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. 3.1. The facts in brief are that, the assessee had filed its return of income for AY 2012-13 on 19.11.2013 declaring total income of Rs.3,48,590/-. The ld. AO has observed in the assessment order that notice u/s 143(2) was issued and duly served on the assessee on 05.09.2014 and thereafter, notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 13.03.2015, both of which remained non-complied. The ld. AO therefore held that the assessee was unable to discharge his onus in relation to the loan of Rs.3,65,00,000/- received during the year and had failed to submit the basic documents. The ld. AO accordingly completed the assessment u/s 144 on 19.03.2015 assessing the to the total income at Rs.3,68,48,590/- by way of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 3.2. In the appellate proceedings, the assessee had assailed the assessment order on merits and inter alia on its legality, viz. it was contended that the assessment order was bad in law as no valid notices u/s 143(2) or 142(1) had been issued upon the assessee. It is seen that, the ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee had set aside the assessment order passed by the ld. AO for making fresh assessment de-novo. Now the assessee is in appeal before us. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 3 ITA No. 1653/KOL/2025 Contemporary News Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 2012-13 3.3. The ld. AR vehemently submitted that no valid notice u/s 143(2) was served on the assessee and therefore, the assessment made in absence of notice u/s 143(2) deserves to be annulled. The ld. AR first invited our attention to the order sheet entry dated 04.09.2014, wherein Ms. R. Saha, ITO, Ward 7(4), Kolkata had signed the entry stating that the case of the assessee had been selected for scrutiny and to issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act to the assessee. The ld. AR thereafter invited our attention to Page 17 of the Paper Book wherein, the copy of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, as obtained from the office of the ld. AO, was placed and showed that the notice was signed on the same date, i.e. 04.09.2014 by one Mr. Barun Krishna Roy, in the purported capacity of ITO, Ward 7(4), Kolkata. The ld. AR vehemently argued that it was not possible that two different persons would have held the office of ITO, Ward 7(4), Kolkata and submitted that there was never any valid issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. The ld. AR claimed that, Mr. Barun Krishna Roy never held the office of ITO, Ward 7(4), Kolkata, which was evident from the fact that, another notice dated 30.10.2014 was later on issued by Ms. R. Saha in the capacity of ITO, Ward 7(4), Kolkata. The ld. AR further pointed out that, the AO in the impugned order had observed that the notice u/s 143(2) was both issued and served on 05.09.2014. It was however brought to our notice that the purported order sheet entry and the alleged issuance of notice u/s 143(2) as per the records was on 04.09.2014, which is contrary to the observation made in the assessment order. The ld. AR thereafter showed us that, there was a mention of speed post issued on 05.09.2014 on the top of the notice, but the inspection of records revealed that there was no proof of Printed from counselvise.com Page | 4 ITA No. 1653/KOL/2025 Contemporary News Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 2012-13 service appended to the said notice. The ld. AR further claimed that it was humanly impossible for the post office to serve the speed post supposedly filed on 05.09.2014 on the same date itself. The ld. AR thus submitted that the validity of issuance and service of the notice u/s 143(2) dated 04.09.2014 was in serious doubt. To further buttress his contention, the ld. AR showed us that there was no notice u/s 142(1) of the Act issued on 13.03.2015. Inviting our attention to Page 20 of the assessment order, the ld. AR showed that a notice u/s 142(1) dated 13.03.2015 was issued in connection with assessment for AY 2007-08 by ITO, Ward 7(1), Kolkata. The ld. AR thus contended that the assertion of the AO that notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 13.03.2015 for AY 2012-13 was also factually erroneous. It was accordingly contended that the purported issuance and service of notice u/s 143(2) was clearly an after-thought, which vitiated the assessment proceedings thereby rendering the assessment order to be null and void. The ld. AR thus urged us to quash the impugned order. 3.3.1. The ld. AR further invited our attention to the financials of the assessee and showed that the assessee had not received any unsecured loan during the year and therefore the addition of Rs.3,65,00,000/- made by the ld. AO on account of unexplained loan was totally unjustified. The ld. AR took us through Pages 33 to 54 of the Paper Book and showed that during the year the assessee had issued interest free Optionally Convertible Bonds of Rs.3,65,00,000/- to a SEBI registered Venture Capital Fund, M/s Opulent Venture Capital Trust,which had also been assessed to tax u/s 143(3) of the Act. He thus urged that the impugned addition was also unsustainable. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 5 ITA No. 1653/KOL/2025 Contemporary News Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 2012-13 3.4. Per contra, the ld. DR submitted that there was valid issuance of notice u/s 143(2) and that the signatures of different persons on the same date, i.e. 04.09.2014 was a procedural error which cannot result in annulment of the assessment order. According to him, the ld. CIT(A) had already granted the assessee a fresh innings and therefore no prejudice was caused to the assessee in as much as the assessee was free to raise all issues in the second round before the ld. AO. 3.5. After hearing the rival submissions, it is observed that, the assessee has raised a legal issue challenging the validity of the impugned assessment order for lack of valid notice u/s 143(2) of the Act and since this challenge goes to the root of jurisdiction, we consider it fit to adjudicate the same first. It is well settled in law that the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act is the notice which confers jurisdiction on the ld. AO to proceed with the assessment and therefore where notice under Section 143(2) is not validly served in the course of assessment proceedings, then the assessment results in nullity. The relevant observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs Hotel Blue Moon Hotels Limited (321 ITR 362)in this regard is as under:- “15. …….Omission on the part of the assessing authority to issue notice under Section 143(2) cannot be a procedural irregularity and the same is not curable and, therefore, the requirement of notice under Section 143(2) cannot be dispensed with. The other important feature that requires to be noticed is that the Section 158 BC(b) specifically refers to some of the provisions of the Act which requires to be followed by the assessing officer while completing the block assessments under Chapter XIV-B of the Act. This legislation is by incorporation. This Section even speaks of subsections which are to be followed by the assessing officer. Had the intention of the legislature was to exclude the provisions of Chapter XIV of the Act, the legislature would have or could have indicated that also. A reading of the provision would clearly indicate, in our opinion, if the assessing officer, if for any reason, repudiates the return filed by the assessee in response to notice under Section 158 BC(a), the assessing officer must necessarily issue notice under Printed from counselvise.com Page | 6 ITA No. 1653/KOL/2025 Contemporary News Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 2012-13 Section 143(2) of the Act within the time prescribed in the proviso to Section 143(2) of the Act. Where the legislature intended to exclude certain provisions from the ambit of Section 158 BC(b) it has done so specifically. Thus, when Section 158 BC(b) specifically refers to applicability of the proviso thereto cannot be exclude. We may also notice here itself that the clarification given by CBDT in its circular No.717 dated 14 August, 1995, has a binding effect on the department, but not on the Court. This circular clarifies the requirement of law in respect of service of notice under sub-section (2) of Section 143 of the Act. Accordingly, we conclude even for the purpose of Chapter XIV-B of the Act, for the determination of undisclosed income for a block period under the provisions of Section 158 BC, the provisions of Section 142 and sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 143 are applicable and no assessment could be made without issuing notice under Section 143(2) of the Act…..\" 3.5.1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Laxman Das Khandelwal (108 taxmann.com 183) further held as under:- “.. A close look at section 292BB shows that if the assessee has participated in the proceedings, it shall be deemed that any notice which is required to be served upon was duly served and the assessee would be precluded from taking any objections that the notice was (a) not served upon him; or (b) not served upon him in time; or (c) served upon him in an improper manner. [Para 7] .. According to section 292BB, if the assessee had participated in the proceedings, by way of legal fiction, notice would be deemed to be valid even if there be infractions as detailed in said section. The scope of section 292BB is to make service of notice having certain infirmities to be proper and valid if there was requisite participation on part of the assessee and section does not save complete absence of notice and, thus, for section 292BB to apply, the notice must have emanated from the department and it is only the infirmities in the manner of service of notice that the section seeks to cure and it is not intended to cure complete absence of notice itself. [Para 9] ..Since the facts on record are clear that no notice under section 143(2) was ever issued by the department, the findings rendered by the High Court and the Tribunal and the conclusion arrived at were correct. There is no reason to take a different view in the matter.” 3.5.2. The ratio decidendi emerging from the above decisions is that, where the notice u/s 143(2) is issued by an Officer lacking jurisdiction over the assessee’s case, but the order is ultimately passed by the Officer holding jurisdiction over the assessee’s case; it has been held that the issue of notice u/s 143(2) by an incorrect Assessing Officer is not mere procedural irregularity but is incurable infirmity. In Printed from counselvise.com Page | 7 ITA No. 1653/KOL/2025 Contemporary News Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 2012-13 such cases it has been held that since the Officer not having jurisdiction over the assessee had issued the notice u/s 143(2) the entire proceedings suffered from jurisdictional defect and therefore the assessment order passed on the basis of issue of invalid notice was ab initio void and required to be cancelled. 3.5.3. Having taken note of the above settled legal position, we now advert to the facts before us. We note that the AO has observed in the assessment order that, “notice u/s 143(2) was issued and duly served on assessee on 05.09.2014. On 13.03.2015, notice u/s 142(1) was issued with…..”. The assessee, upon taking inspection of the records, has placed before us the certified true copy of the order sheet along with the notice(s) found in the case records. We note that there is an order sheet entry dated 04.09.2014 signed by the then ITO, Ward Printed from counselvise.com Page | 8 ITA No. 1653/KOL/2025 Contemporary News Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 2012-13 7(4), Ms Runu Saha who has directed issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. The relevant extract of the order sheet entry is as under:- 3.5.4. We also note that the office of ITO, Ward 7(4) was held by Ms. Runu Saha, as is evident from the signature found in the subsequent notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 30.10.2014 issued after a month by the same officer. It has however been brought to our notice that the notice u/s 143(2) bearing date 04.09.2014 was not issued by Printed from counselvise.com Page | 9 ITA No. 1653/KOL/2025 Contemporary News Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 2012-13 the Officer holding jurisdiction over the assessee’s case i.e. Ms. Runu Saha. Rather, it is evident that the notice was signed by one Mr. Barun Kumar Roy, which for the sake of convenience, is extracted below:- 3.5.5. The ld. DR was unable to controvert the submission of the ld. AR that Mr. Barun Kumar Roy never held the office of ITO, Ward 7(4), Kolkata and therefore he could not have exercised valid jurisdiction to sign and issue the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. It is also observed from the above extracted notice that, it was claimed to have been sent by speed post on 05.09.2014. However there is no proof of service available on record. We also find force in the ld. AR’s plea that, the impugned notice could not have been possibly issued and served through speed post on the same date, as averred in the assessment order. We also note that, the ld. AO has also incorrectly asserted that notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was also issued on 13.03.2015 whereas the case records placed before us reveals that the said notice related to AY 2012-13 and not the impugned AY 2007-08. It is thus gathered that the impugned assessment order was passed without any valid issuance of notice u/s 143(2) or 142(1) of the Act. 3.5.6. In view of the above, we are therefore of the view that there was no valid issuance or service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act upon the assessee, and thus the impugned assessment suffered from jurisdictional defect rendering the assessment order dated 19.03.2015 to be void ab initio. We accordingly quash the impugned order and allow the legal ground raised by the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 10 ITA No. 1653/KOL/2025 Contemporary News Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 2012-13 4. Since the legal issue raised by the assessee has been allowed, the grounds raised on merits have become academic and is therefore not being separately adjudicated upon. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on .2026. Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: .2026 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: BY ORDER, True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, 5. Guard file. Printed from counselvise.com "