A reassessment notice issued by an Income Tax Officer against a corporate assessee having income above Rs. 30 lakhs is void ab initio due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction as per CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011, which mandates assessment by a DCIT or ACIT.

O R D E R

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 07.07.2025 DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1078257878(1) on the following grounds of appeal:

1. “That the Order passed u/s 250 is bad in law as well as on facts of the case.

2. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in law as well as on facts of the case by confirming the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer without providing to the appellant with the information/materials evidence on the basis of which the case was reopened.

3. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in law as well as on facts of the case by confirming the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer of treated the 3 received amount of Rs. 15,00,063/-from M/s Marubhumi Enclave Pvt Ltd as accommodation entry and added back the same as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of The Income Tax Act.

4. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case by confirming the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer by treating the interest paid on the aforesaid alleged bogus loan as not allowable as a deduction under Section 36 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the tune of Rs. 1,16,506/-, and by adding the same back to the total income.

5. That the appellant craves to leave, add, amend or adduce 5 any of the grounds of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings.”

The assessee has also filed additional grounds of appeal challenging the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee as its return of income was more than Rs. 30 lacs which is as under:

“For that the assessing officer ITO Ward 4(4) Kolkata did not have jurisdiction over the case of the assessee as its returned income was more than Rs. 30,00,000. Hence, the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is bad in law and without jurisdiction.”

Since the assessee has raised legal issue, the legal issue can be raised at any point of time as decided by the National Thermal Power Company Limited Vs. CIT (1988) 229 ITR 382 (SC). Considering the above judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court, I admit the additional grounds raised by the assessee.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 07.11.2017 declaring total income at Rs. 31,42,890/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 23.03.2019. As per the information received from the DIT (Inv.), Unit-1(3), Kolkata. The case was reopened u/s 147/148 of the Act after obtaining approvals from the competent authority. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued by the Income Tax Department office of Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(4), Kolkata dated 31.03.2021, DIN & Notice No. ITBA/AST/S/148/2020-21/1032112813(1). Accordingly, the assessee filed return of income on 26.04.2021 bearing acknowledgement No. 345177431260421 with Circle 4(1), Kolkata declaring ssme income after claiming deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act Rs. 25,000/- as filed return u/s 139 of the Act. Thereafter, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 22.11.2021 and 142(1) was issued on 20.12.2021 by t