IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM ITA No.1838/KOL/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18)

ITO Ward 2(1) Rajroop Doshi Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, P-7

88A, Sarat Bose Road, Vs. Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-

Kolkata-700026, West Bengal

700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (

Respondent)

PAN No. ADIPD6441P Assessee by : Shri Sunil Surana, AR Revenue by : Shri Sandip Sarkar, DR Date of hearing: 09.12.2025 Date of pronouncement: 07.01.2026

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 29.07.2025 for the AY 2017-18.

2. The issue raised in ground no.1 is against the order of ld. CIT (A)

upholding the validity of assessment order when the same was passed by the ld. AO having no jurisdiction over the assessee.

2.1. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income which was revised on 27.03.2018, declaring total income at ₹47,89,100/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) for examination of certain points namely, exemption from capital gains/

capital gains/ loss on sale of property and investment in immovable property. The notice u/s 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 09.08.2018, was issued by ITO ward 2(3), Kolkata. Thereafter, the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire was issued on 21.10.2019. The assessee filed the copy of computation of balance sheet, profit and loss account, ITR and other details as called for by the ld. AO. Finally, the assessment was framed by the ITO Ward 2(3) Kolkata by making two additions namely;

i. ₹ 63,41,000/- in respect of different between the purchase price and stamp duty valuation and;

ii. ₹8 lacs on account of brokerage paid to Satya Narayan Sharma and Shri Vinod Agarwal.

2.2. The said assessment was appealed before the ld. CIT (A) challenging the jurisdiction of the ld. AO to frame the assessment. However, the ld. CIT (A) dismissed the issue on by observing and holding as under:-

“5.1. DECISION:- The appellant has contended that since the returned income exceededRs.20,00,000/-, the jurisdiction should have vested with the ACIT/DCIT and not with the ITO, citing CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 and relevant notifications. However, this objection was not raised before the AO during the course of the assessment proceedings. Under Section 124(3) of the Act, any objection to the jurisdiction must be raised within one month from the issuance of notice under Section 143(2). In the instant case, the jurisdictional defect, if any, stands waived due to non- compliance with the statutory limitation. The AO has passed the order under lawful authority, and thus this ground lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.”

2.3. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that undisputedly, the income as per ITR filed by the assessee is ₹47,89,100/- and the notice u/s 143(2) was issued by ITO Ward 2(3), Kolkata. Finally, the assessment was also framed by the same Assessing Officer. The ld. AO vehemently submitted before us that the order passed by the ld. AO is without jurisdiction as the ITO ward 2(3), Kolkata, was not having jurisdiction over the case of the assessee in term of CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011{F.No.187/12/2010-IT(A-I)}. We note that there is no valid order of transfer of jurisdiction from ACIT to ITO and therefore the transfer of jurisdiction is in contravention of provisions of Section 127(1), (2) and (3) of the Act. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kusum Goyal (supra)the relevant extracts of the High Court are extracted below:

“It is evident that the respondent no. 2 had sought to justify his action by stating that the jurisdiction automatically gets vested with the jurisdictional officer and no