N.C. HORE,SILIGURI V. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), SILIGURI

ITA 1795/KOL/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by the assessee, N C Hore, against the order passed by the Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Chennai for the assessment year 2017-2018. The primary contention was regarding the notices issued under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, which were claimed not to specify the type of scrutiny being proposed. The assessee argued that the assessment was supposed to be a limited scrutiny, but the notices and the assessment order did not reflect this, leading to an improper assessment. The revenue argued that the case did not qualify for limited scrutiny and that the assessee had not complied with all the notices. The Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the AO for a fresh assessment, emphasizing the need for proper procedural adherence.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 829285 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Kolkata
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 11-08-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AVIJIT ADHIKARI
• Assessee Lawyers: PROMIT MAJUMDAR

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “एस.एम.सी” न्यायपीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA श्री जाजज माथन, न्याययक सदस्य क े समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.1795/KOL/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) N C Hore, Mia Garage Building, Hill Cart Road, Siliguri, West Bengal-734001 Vs ITO Ward-3(1), Siliguri PAN No. :AAEFN 2013 Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Promit Majumdar, AR राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Avijit Adhikari, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 12/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 12/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 22.07.2025 passed by the ld.Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Chennai for the assessment year 2017-2018. 2. It was submitted by the Ld.AR that the notice u/s.143(2) of the Act had been issued on 14.08.2018 by ITO Ward-2(4), Siliguri wherein there was no details of the type of scrutiny that was being proposed. The notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was also issued on 26.09.2018 by ACIT, Circle-3(1), Siliguri wherein it is not mentioned whether it is scrutiny or limited. It was submission that in the assessment order the AO has mentioned that the reason for selection was reduction in the revised income. It was the submission that this was a case of limited scrutiny. It was the submission that the AO has gone beyond the issue. It was submission that the assessment order is liable to be quashed. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1795/KOL/2025 2 3. In reply, the Ld. Sr.DR submitted that this is not a case of limited scrutiny insofar as limited scrutiny is not mentioned anywhere. It was submission that the assessee has not complied with all the notices. 4. It was then submitted by the Ld.AR that multiple notices have been issued u/s.143(2) of the Act by multiple officers. It was submission that even on this ground the assessment is liable to be quashed. 5. I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly shows that the assessment order has been passed by the ACIT, Circle-3(1), Siliguri. The notice u/s.143(2) of the Act has been issued on 26/09/2018 by ACIT, Circle-3(1), Siliguri. The notice u/s.143(2) of the Act does not talk of the limited scrutiny neither the assessment order talk of the limited scrutiny is only gives a reason for the selection. When its the case of limited scrutiny obviously the notice will also speak of limited scrutiny. 6. A perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that the assessee is not co-operated in the assessment proceedings introduced all the details brought forward by the AO as has been mentioned by the AO in his assessment order. It is also noticed that notices u/s.133(6) of the Act issued have not been complied with. This being so, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the AO for readjudication after granting assessee adequate opportunity from being heard. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1795/KOL/2025 3 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 12/01/2026. Sd/- (जाजज माथन) (GEORGE MATHAN) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER कोलकाता Kolkata; ददनाांक Dated 12/01/2026 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S. आदेश की प्रनतललपप अग्रेपर्त/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant- 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent- 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A), 4. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 5. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण, कोलकाता / DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. गार्ज फाईल / Guard file. सत्यापपत प्रयत //True Copy// Printed from counselvise.com "