Quick wins for a faster PC:
Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Two reports say the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Kolkata Bench, quashed the reassessment of Bhinaswar Commercial Pvt. Ltd. after finding that the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT) who issued its section 148 notice lacked the pecuniary jurisdiction assigned under CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011. The underlying Tribunal order was not available for verification, so the case details and result below are attributed to those reports, not presented as independently confirmed findings.
What the reported ruling is about
The dispute concerns which tax officer could initiate reassessment proceedings—not whether the additions to the company’s income were correct on their merits. The reported question is whether a DCIT could issue a section 148 notice when the CBDT’s income-based allocation assigned the case to an Income-tax Officer (ITO).
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
The TaxCorp and TaxGuru both report that the ITAT Kolkata quashed the reassessment in Bhinaswar Commercial Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT. They describe the CBDT instruction’s monetary allocation as binding on the department and say the DCIT issuing the notice did not have the assigned pecuniary jurisdiction. Because the Tribunal’s order has not been checked, this should be treated as the reports’ account of the decision, not as a verified statement of its exact ratio or broader reach. The TaxCorp’s report and TaxGuru’s report describe the outcome.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →How the case reportedly reached the ITAT
The TaxCorp’s account gives this sequence for assessment year 2012–13:
#1 Best Overall
- Bhinaswar Commercial reportedly returned total income of ₹17,75,550.
- The DCIT, Circle 14(1), Kolkata issued a notice under section 148 dated 30 March 2019.
- Notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1), including a questionnaire, followed. The company reportedly did not comply with those requisitions.
- On 27 December 2019, the DCIT completed an assessment under sections 143(3) read with 147, determining total income at ₹2,55,94,714.
- The National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) partly allowed the company’s appeal on 13 August 2025. The company then appealed to the ITAT Kolkata.
These procedural details are reported by The TaxCorp; they have not been independently checked against the paper book or Tribunal order. The reported additional ground challenged the DCIT’s authority under CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011, F. No. 187/12/2010-IT(A-I), dated 31 January 2011. The company argued that the notice was contrary to the instruction and that the assessment was void.
Why the Tribunal reportedly considered a new ground
The reports say the company raised its jurisdiction objection as an additional ground at the ITAT stage, rather than before the lower authorities. The TaxCorp reports that the Tribunal admitted it as a pure question of law that could be decided on facts already on record. It also says the Tribunal referred to Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT, National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT, and PCIT v. Britannia Industries Ltd. in considering whether to admit and decide the ground.
The underlying order was not available to confirm the reasoning or citations. The reported admission of the ground is therefore specific to this case as described by The TaxCorp; it does not establish that every jurisdictional objection first raised on appeal will be admitted.
Recommended Free Tools
What the reported result does—and does not—establish
Both reports describe the reassessment as quashed because the DCIT who issued the section 148 notice lacked the pecuniary jurisdiction allocated under Instruction No. 1/2011. On that account, the notice and consequential reassessment could not stand. The decision’s order date, appeal number, exact reasoning, and any later appellate status are not established by the available reports.
Do not read the reported result as a universal rule that every reassessment initiated by a DCIT is invalid, or that the same allocation applies today. The reports do not establish the exact threshold applied to Bhinaswar Commercial, whether the instruction has since been amended or superseded, or how the result applies to other dates, locations, taxpayer categories, or jurisdictional facts.
What to check in a similar jurisdiction dispute
A reported ruling can be relevant, but its application depends on the governing allocation and the record in the individual case. The key comparison points are:
- Returned income: Identify the income figure relevant under the applicable instruction, rather than assuming the assessed income determines the allocation.
- Applicable category: Check the taxpayer and geographic category, along with the threshold in the original instruction or any instrument that applies to the relevant date.
- Officer and statutory act: Establish the officer’s designation and jurisdiction, and identify who actually issued the section 148 notice.
- Effect of the defect: Determine whether the alleged allocation issue affects the notice and consequential assessment under the law and facts applicable to that proceeding.
- Procedural record: Check when and how the objection was raised, and whether the relevant facts are already on record.
A separate Kolkata ITAT decision, Palanhar Distributors Private Limited v. DCIT, Circle 5(1), Kolkata, discusses Instruction No. 1/2011 and reports thresholds of ₹20 lakh for metro cities and ₹15 lakh for mofussil areas in that case’s context. Those figures come from a contextual reported decision, not the official instruction or the Bhinaswar order, and should not be assumed to govern Bhinaswar Commercial or another taxpayer. See the reported Palanhar Distributors decision.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Sources and verification limits
The case account relies on two secondary reports: The TaxCorp, “CBDT Pecuniary Jurisdiction Mandate Is Binding: ITAT Kolkata Quashes Reassessment Initiated by Non-Jurisdictional DCIT,” published 10 October 2026, and TaxGuru, “DCIT Reassessment Without Pecuniary Jurisdiction Quashed by ITAT Kolkata,” published 9 October 2026. Neither underlying report supplied a verified copy of the Bhinaswar ITAT order here. TaxGuru’s report does not disclose the appeal number or order date in the available result.
Best Value
The original order and official text of CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 are needed to confirm the appeal details, threshold and category applied, officers’ jurisdictional assignments, precise holding, and any later appellate status. Until those are checked, the safe conclusion is limited: two reports say the ITAT Kolkata quashed this reassessment on the stated pecuniary-jurisdiction ground.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
