Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.44 seconds)Section 119 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Shri Gajanand Agrawal(Huf), Dhanbad vs Acit Central Cir-3, Ranchi on 15 February, 2019
06. The ld. AR vehemently submitted that the notice u/s 143(2) of the
Act, does not specify whether it is a limited scrutiny or a complete
scrutiny or a compulsory manual scrutiny. The ld. AR submitted that
the CBDT has issued specific instruction vide instruction no. F. No.
Page | 3
ITA No. 1147/KOL/2025
Somnath Gupta; A.Y. 2018-19
225/157/2017/ITA-II Dated 23-06-2017, that the notice u/s 143(2)
shall be issued in one of the three formats which are specifically
mentioned and prescribed but the present notice issued is not in
accordance with such said instruction and therefore, the assessment
framed consequently is invalid and void ab initio. The ld. AR in defense
of his arguments relied on the decisions of Tapas Kumar Das Vs. ITO in
ITA No. 1660/KOL/2024 vide order dated 11.03.2025 for A.Y. 2017-18
and Ashok Kumar Agarwal and others HUF Vs ACIT Cir 34 ITA No.
1/Kol/2025 A.Y. 2017-18, wherein similar issue has been decided in
favour of the assessee. The ld. AR therefore prayed that the additional
ground raised by the assessee may kindly be allowed.
State Bank Of Travancore vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kerala on 8 January, 1986
Page | 6
ITA No. 1147/KOL/2025
Somnath Gupta; A.Y. 2018-19
In order to aid proper determination of the income of money lenders and
banks, the Central Board of Direct Taxes issued a circular dated October
6, 1952, providing that where interest accruing on doubtful debts is
credited to a suspense account, It need not be included in the assessee's
taxable income, provided the Income-tax Officer is satisfied that recovery
is practically improbable. Twenty-six years later, on June 20, 1978, in
view of the judgment of the Kerala High Court In STATE BANK OF
TRAVANCORE v. CIT [1977] 110 ITR 336, the Board by another circular,
withdrew with immediate effect the earlier circular. However, by circular
dated October 9, 1984, the Board decided that Interest in respect of
doubtful debts credited to suspense account by banking companies would
be subjected to tax but Interest charged in an account where there has
been no recovery for three consecutive accounting years would not be
subjected to tax in the fourth year and onwards. The circular also stated
that if there is any recovery in the fourth year or later, the actual amount
recovered only would be subjected to tax in the respective years. This
procedure would apply to assessment year 1979-80 and onwards."
Jcit(Osd),Cir.-12(1) , Kolkata vs M/S Wearit Global Ltd., Kolkata on 13 April, 2021
010. Even, we find merit in the second limb of the argument of the ld.
AR that notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 20.09.2019, was issued by
the ITO, Ward 33(4), Kolkata, which is in violation of pecuniary
jurisdiction of the CBDT instruction No.1/2011 (F. No. 187/12/2010-
IT(A-1), Dated 31.01.2011. According to the said instruction, the ITO
has pecuniary jurisdiction where the income is upto 20 lacs in the Metro
Cities and upto 15 lacs in Mofussil areas whereas the DC/AC have
jurisdiction above 20 lacs in Metro cities and above 15 lacs in the
Mofussil areas. In the present case, the assessee filed the return of
income u/s 139(1) of the Act before the ITO 33(4), Kolkata on
Page | 7
ITA No. 1147/KOL/2025
Somnath Gupta; A.Y. 2018-19
12.10.2018, disclosing total income of ₹66,79,450/-. We note that
notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 20.09.2019 by ITO ward 33(4), Kolkata
which is in violation of the CBDT Instruction No.1/2011 (F. No.
187/12/2010-IT(A-1), Dated 31.01.2011. Therefore, the said notice
has been issued by non-jurisdictional AO while the assessment was
framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dehors the mandatory notice u/s 143(2)
of the Act by ACIT Central Circle-2(1) Kolkata lwhich is invalid and
cannot be sustained. The case of the assessee find support from the
decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT vs. M/s
Shree Shoppers Ltd. in ITAT 39/2023, IA No. GA/1/2023, dated
15.03.2023, wherein the Hon'ble Court has decided the issue in favour
of the assessee by upholding the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal in
ITA No. 865/KOL/2018 for A.Y. 2012-13 in case of M/s Shree Shoppers
Ltd. Vs. DCIT has held that notice issued by ITO, Ward 39(4), Kolkata,
u/s 143(2) of the Act was without valid jurisdiction and therefore the
consequent assessment framed by the DCIT, circle 9(2), Kolkata is
invalid.
Tapan Kumar Das, Kolkata vs Ito, Wd-50(1), Kolkata, Kolkata on 31 July, 2017
08. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials
available on record, we find that undisputedly the notice issued u/s
143(2) of the Act dated 20.09.2019, specifies only computer aided
scrutiny selection which neither mentioned it either to be a limited or a
complete scrutiny nor compulsory manual scrutiny. Thus, the said
notice has been issued in violation of the instruction issued by CBDT as
noted above. In our opinion, the revenue authorities have to follow the
instruction issued by CBDT and violation thereto would certainly render
the notice as invalid with the result all the consequential proceedings
would also be invalid. The case of the assessee find support from the
decision of the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Tapas Kumar Das Vs.
Page | 4
ITA No. 1147/KOL/2025
Somnath Gupta; A.Y. 2018-19
ITO (supra), wherein a similar issue has been decided in favour of the
assessee. The operative part of the same is extracted below: -
Section 133A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Shiv Nath S/O Sh. Amar Nath, Yamunanagar vs Ito, Ward -4, Yamunanagar on 5 September, 2022
संलग्िक : यचौिरर
Enclosure as above
"7. In our opinion, the notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act which is not in the
prescribed format as provided under the Act is an invalid notice and accordingly,
all the subsequent proceedings thereto would be invalid and void ab initio. The
case of the assessee find support from the decision of Shib Nath Ghosh Vs. ITO
in ITA No. 1812/KOL/2024 for A.Y. 2018-19 vide order dated 29.11.2024,
wherein the co-ordinate Bench has held as under:-
Tapan Das And 2 Ors vs Page No.# 2/3 on 4 May, 2020
08. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials
available on record, we find that undisputedly the notice issued u/s
143(2) of the Act dated 20.09.2019, specifies only computer aided
scrutiny selection which neither mentioned it either to be a limited or a
complete scrutiny nor compulsory manual scrutiny. Thus, the said
notice has been issued in violation of the instruction issued by CBDT as
noted above. In our opinion, the revenue authorities have to follow the
instruction issued by CBDT and violation thereto would certainly render
the notice as invalid with the result all the consequential proceedings
would also be invalid. The case of the assessee find support from the
decision of the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Tapas Kumar Das Vs.
Page | 4
ITA No. 1147/KOL/2025
Somnath Gupta; A.Y. 2018-19
ITO (supra), wherein a similar issue has been decided in favour of the
assessee. The operative part of the same is extracted below: -
1