IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM (Assessment Year:2017-18)

Goutam Dey ITO Ward-50(1), South Habra, Barasat, Uttarapan Complex, North 24 paraganas, Vs. Manicktala Civic Centre, West Bengal-743263 Kolkata-700054, West Bengal (Appellant) (

Respondent)

PAN No. ADFPD9154L Assessee by : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AR Revenue by : Shri Pankaj Pandey, DR Date of hearing: 09.09.2025 Date of pronouncement: 16.10.2025

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 16.02.2024 for the AY 2017-18.

02. At the time of hearing, the assessee raised additional ground which is extracted below:

1. For that on the facts of the case, the Assessing Officer issuing the notices u/s. 143(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 24.09.2018 & 27.09.2018 did not have jurisdiction over the case of the assessee, as there was no mention of the type of scrutiny under which the case of the assessee has been selected, hence the notice is bad-in-law and the assessment order passed on the basis of such notice is baseless and should be quashed.

2. For that on the facts of the case, the A.O. was wrong in issuing notice u/s. 143(2) on 24.09.2018 & 27.09.2018 without complying to the CBDT Instruction F. No. 225/157/2017/ITA-II dated 23.06.2017and so the notice issued u/s. 143(2) is not valid as per Provision of Act.

3. For that the appellant reserves the right to adduce any further ground or grounds, if necessary, at or before the hearing of the appeal.

03. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we find that the assessee has raised an additional ground of appeal challenging the jurisdiction of the AO to make addition. In our opinion the issued raised in the additional ground is a purely a legal issue qua which all the facts are available in the appeal folder and no further verification of facts are required from any quarter whatsoever. In our considered view the assessee is at liberty to raise any legal issue before any appellate authority for the first time even when the same has not been raised before the lower authorities. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decisions of the Apex court in the case of i) Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs CIT in 187 ITR 688, ii) National Thermal Power Co. Ltd v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 and also by the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in PCIT vs. Britannia Industries Ltd. [2017] 396 ITR 677 (Cal). Therefore, we are inclined to admit the same for adjudication.

04. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the said ground is purely a legal issue and the assessee is within his legal right to raise the same before any of the appellate authority at any stage whatsoever. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act has been issued in an invalid format in violation to the CBDT instruction no. F. No. 225/157/2017/ITA-II Dated 23-06-2017. Accordingly, the assessment order passed consequently is void ab initio, ultra virus and nullity in the eyes of law. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that since the issue raised is legal issue which goes to the root of the matter and since no further verification of facts is required to be done from any quarter whatsoever, the legal ground raised by the assessee may kindly be admitted for adjudication. In defense of his arguments the ld. AR relied on the decisions of the Apex court in the case of i) Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs CIT in 187 ITR 688 , ii) National Thermal Power Co. Ltd v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 and also by the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in PCIT vs. Britannia Industries Ltd.

[2017] 396 ITR 677 (Cal).

05. The ld. DR on the other hand submitted that the issue was not raised before any of the authorities below and therefore, may kindly be restored to the file of any of the authorities