INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 42(1), MURSHIDABAD V. ABHOY KUMAR JAIN, AURANGABAD, JANGIPUR

ITA 2022/KOL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-42(1), Murshidabad against Abhoy Kumar Jain, concerning the assessment year 2017-2018. The primary issue was the validity of the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, which was found not to comply with the CBDT's Instruction No. 1/2011. The CIT(A) quashed the assessment based on this non-compliance, a decision which the Tribunal upheld, referencing decisions from the Calcutta and Punjab & Haryana High Courts that supported the binding nature of CBDT circulars on the department.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 791832 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 01-09-2025
• Other Referred Cases: CIT Vs. Nopany & Sons, Crystal Phosphates Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D HEERAJ

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.2022/KOL/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) ITO Ward-42(1), Murshidabad Vs Abhoy Kumar Jain, 39, R.N.Tagore Road, Berhampur, Murshidabad PAN No. :ACOPJ 2370 E (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Dheeraj, Sr.DR निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee by None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 09/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 09/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 01.07.2025 for the assessment year 2017-2018. 2. It was submitted by the ld. Sr. DR that the ld.CIT(A) has quashed the assessment, insofar as he has held that notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was not in compliance with the instruction issued by the CBDT in Instruction No. 1/2011 [F. NO. 187/12/2010-IT(A-I)], dated 31- 1-2011. It was the submission that the assessee has not intimated this defect before the Assessing Officer in line with the provisions of Section 124(3) of the Act. It was the prayer that the order of the ld.CIT(A) be reversed and that of the ld.AO be restored. 3. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the order of the ld. CIT(A). A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) shows that the ld. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1818/KOL/2025 2 CIT(A) has followed the judicial discipline, insofar as in para 6.1.2 of the order he has followed the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nopany & Sons, reported in 2022(2) TMI 399- Calcutta High Court. When a legal issue is being raised on the basis of subsequent decision of the Hon’ble High Courts/Hon’ble Supreme Court, obviously the provisions of Section143(2) of the Act cannot be complied with by the assessee. It must also be mentioned here that the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Crystal Phosphates Ltd., reported in [2023] 152 taxmann.com 232(P&H)/[2024] 461 ITR 289 (Punjab & Haryana), has categorically held as follows :- 10. All the conditions of the circular were fulfilled by the assessee and as per CBDT circular, the case of the assessee could not be re-opened for scrutiny. The appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed by the High Court by referring to the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in UCO Bank's case (supra). 11. To the same effect is the judgment passed by the Calcutta High Court in Amal Kumar Ghosh v. Asstt. CIT [2014] 45 taxmann.com 482/225 Taxman 229 (Mag.)/361 ITR 458/[2014] 105 DTR 351, wherein it has been held that during the financial year 2004-05, the selection of case for scrutiny had to be completed within 3 months of the date of filing of return. In that case, return was filed on 29- 10-2004 and selection of case for scrutiny was done on 6-7-2005 i.e. the beyond the period of three months. It was held that instructions of CBDT were violated, as the circulars were binding upon the department. The Department was bound by that standard and could not act with discrimination. Finally, the appeal was allowed. 12. In the facts of the present case, the Tribunal has followed the guidelines issued by Hon'ble the Supreme Court as stated above and has observed that with respect to the notice dated 27-11-2007. The appellant submitted reply on 18-1-2008 and had taken up the issue with regard to jurisdiction of the assessing authority to issue such notice. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly observed that it cannot be held that the appellant had acquiesced to the jurisdiction. As per CBDT instructions, the burden was on the authority assuming jurisdiction to show and establish that such instructions have been duly complied and satisfied in letter and spirit. Since notice under Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1818/KOL/2025 3 section 143 (2) of the Act was not in terms of the instructions of the CBDT, both the notice and the assessment framed were held to be without valid jurisdiction and were accordingly, quashed. 4. This being so, respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court as referred by the ld.CIT(A) in para 6.1.2 of his order as also the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Crystal Phosphates Ltd, referred to supra, we find no error in the order of the ld.CIT(A) which calls for any interference. Consequently, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed. 5. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 09/12/2025. Sd/- (RAJESH KUMAR) Sd/- (GEORGE MATHAN) लेखा सदस्य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यधनयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER कोलकाता Kolkata; ददनाांक Dated 09/12/2025 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S. आदेश की प्रनतललपप अग्रेपर्त/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेशधिुसधर/ BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant- 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent- 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A), 4. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 5. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण, कोलकाता / DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. सत्यापपत प्रतत //True Copy// Printed from counselvise.com "