RAJ TRIMURTI INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA V. ITO, WARD 2.1, KOLKATA

CO 69/KOL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by both the Income Tax Officer (ITO) and Raj Trimurti Infraprojects Private Limited against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 27.03.2025 for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The primary contention raised by the assessee in the cross objection was the lack of jurisdiction of the AO who passed the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found that the AO lacked the necessary jurisdiction as per the CBDT instruction no.1/2011, which stipulates that in metro cities, AOs with jurisdiction over incomes above 30 lacs should be AC/DCs, not ITOs. The Tribunal's decision was supported by precedents from the Hon'ble High Court in similar cases.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 779252 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 15-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 03-10-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Raghvendra Mohta Vs. ACIT, PCIT Vs. Raghvendra Mohta, Bhagyalaxmi Conclave (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S.B. CHAKRABORTHY
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL SURANA
• Keywords: Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM ITA No.1747/KOL/2025 (Assessment Year:2017-18) Income Tax officer, Ward 2(1) Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, 7 th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal Vs. Raj Trimurti Infraprojects Private Limited 47J, Selimpur lane, Jodhpur Park, Dhakuria SO, Kolkata-700031, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAGCM6646R CO No. 69/KOL/2025 (Arising in ITA No. 1747/KOL/2025 for A.Y. 2017-18) Raj Trimurti Infraprojects Private Limited 47J, Selimpur lane, Jodhpur Park, Dhakuria SO, Kolkata-700031, West Bengal Vs. Income Tax officer, Ward 2(1) Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, 7 th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sunil Surana, AR Revenue by : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR Date of hearing: 08.10.2025 Date of pronouncement: 15.10.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: These are appeals preferred by the assessee and Revenue against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 27.03.2025 for the AY 2017-18. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 ITA No. 1747/K/025 & CO No. 69/K/25 Raj Trimurti Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. 02. At the outset, we note that the appeal of the Revenue is barred by limitation for 62 days for which Condonation petition is filed. After perusing the condonation petition and hearing the rival parties, we are of the view that the delay is for sufficient and genuine reasons and therefore, we are inclined to condone the delay. 03. The Revenue has challenged the deletion of addition by learned CIT (A) on merits by raising three grounds whereas, the assessee by filing cross objection challenging the validity of the order passed by the learned AO u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 28.12.2019. Since the assessee has raised legal issue in the cross objection, therefore, we are inclined to decide the legal issue raised in the cross objection. 04. The first issue raised by the assessee in the cross objection is against the jurisdiction of the learned AO to pass the order u/s 143(3) of the Act on the ground of lack of inheritance jurisdiction. 05. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee declared total income of ₹2,15,57,650/- in the revised return filed on 15.11.2018. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and statutory notices were duly issued and served upon the assessee. We note that the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued by ITO Ward 2(3), Kolkata dated 10.08.2018, and accordingly, the assessment was also framed by the ITO Ward 2(3), Kolkata. Therefore, we find merit in the contention of the assessee that there is lack of inheritance jurisdiction of the learned AO in view of the income declared by the assessee in the return of income. In our opinion, the assessment should have been framed by the AC/DC, who has the inheritance jurisdiction in terms of circular of CBDT instruction no.1/2011 Printed from counselvise.com Page | 3 ITA No. 1747/K/025 & CO No. 69/K/25 Raj Trimurti Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. (F.No.187/12/2010-IT(A-1), dated 31.01.2011, which provides that assessment shall be framed by the learned AO in accordance with aforesaid CBDT instruction. The said instruction is extracted below: - “Instruction No.1/2011 [F.No.187/12/2010-ΙΠ(A-1), DATED 31-1-2011 References have been received by the Board from a large number of taxpayers, especially from mofussil areas, that the existing monetary limits for assigning cases to ITOs and DCS/ACs is causing hardship to the taxpayers, as it results in transfer of their cases to a DC/AC who is located in a different station, which increases their cost of compliance. The Board had considered the matter and is of the opinion that the existing limits need to be revised to remove the abovementioned hardship. Income declared (mofussil areas) Income declared (metro cities) ITOs Acs/ DCs ITOs DCs/ Acs Corporate returns Upto ₹20 lcs Above ₹20 lacs Upto ₹30 lacs Above ₹30 lacs Non-corporate returns Upto ₹15 lacs Above ₹15 lacs Upto ₹20 lacs Above ₹20 lacs An increase in the monetary limits is also considered desirable in view of the increase in the scale of trade and industry since 2001, when the present income limits were introduced. It has therefore been decided to increase the monetary limits as under: Metro charges for the purpose of above instructions shall be Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Chennai, Delhi, Kolkata, Hyderabad, Mumbai and Pune. The above instructions are issued in supersession of the earlier instructions and shall be applicable with effect from 1-4-2011.\"” 06. Therefore, in terms of the said CBDT instruction, the jurisdiction lies with the AC/DC in case of metro cities, where the income is above 30 lacs. Therefore, the learned AO who has passed the order lacked the jurisdiction. The case of the assessee find support from the decision of Raghvendra Mohta Vs. ACIT in ITA no. 2416/KOL/2017 for A.Y. 2014-15, which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of PCIT Vs. Raghvendra Mohta in ITAT/51/2025 in IA no. GA/1/2025, GA/2/2025, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held as under: - Printed from counselvise.com Page | 4 ITA No. 1747/K/025 & CO No. 69/K/25 Raj Trimurti Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. “We have heard Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Abhratosh Mazumder, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Avra Mazumder, learned advocate for the respondent. The assessee preferred appeal before the learned Tribunal challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata (CIT(A)] dated 26.9.2017. One of the grounds urged before the learned Tribunal was that the Assessing Officer, who passed the assessment order did not have jurisdiction over the case of the assessee and, therefore, the notice as well as the assessment order are bad in law. The learned Tribunal took note of the facts and circumstances of the case and found that the assessee filed its return of income declaring the income to be nil. Subsequently, notice under section 143(2) was issued on 10.9.2015 and notice under section 142(1) dated 13.6.2016 was issued along with the questionnaire. The assessee contended that the notices were without jurisdiction and relied upon section 120 of the Act. In this regard, the assessee referred to the notification issued by the CBDT in Instruction No.1 of 2011. The learned Tribunal took into consideration the facts of the case and found that the assessment has been framed by the Assessing Officer, who inherently lacks jurisdiction to do so. The learned Tribunal took note of the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of the learned Tribunal in the case of Bhagyalaxmi Conclave (P) Ltd. us. DCIT dated 3.2.2021. Apart from other decisions and allowed the assessee's appeal, the revenue had challenged the order passed in the case of Bhagyalaxmi Conclave (P) Ltd. before this court in ITAT/221/2022 etc. and by a judgment reported in 2022 (12) TMI 1514, the appeal filed by the department was dismissed wherein one of the questions framed is identical to the substantial questions of law suggested by the revenue in the instant case. Thus, we find that the learned Tribunal was right in allowing the assessee' appeal and setting aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer on the ground of lack of inherent jurisdiction. For the above reason, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue.” 07. Therefore, following the decision of the Hon’ble Court, we quash the assessment framed by the learned AO on the ground of lack of inheritance jurisdiction. The ground no.1 of the CO of the assessee is allowed. 08. Since, we have allowed the appeal of the assessee on ground no.1, the second issue raised in ground no.2 is not adjudicated at this stage and is left open to be decided if need arises for the same in future. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 5 ITA No. 1747/K/025 & CO No. 69/K/25 Raj Trimurti Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. 09. In view of our decision in the cross objection of assessee the appeal of the Revenue is rendered infructuous, hence, dismissed. 010. In the result, the CO of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 15.10.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 15.10.2025 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 "