Pankhuri Mishra Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata)
Invalid 143(2) format kills assessment – Non-mention of scrutiny type renders notice void – Computer-aided notice not enough- ITAT holds assessment u/s 143(3) invalid for procedural breach- Notice u/s 143(2) not in prescribed CBDT format— CBDT instruction binding on AO Assessment quashed as void ab initio
Assessee appealed against CIT(A)’s order dated 14-05-2024 for A.Y. 2017-18 challenging the validity of assessment framed u/s 143(3). A delay of 19 days in filing the appeal was condoned as bonafide.
Assessee raised an additional legal ground that the notice u/s 143(2) dated 22-09-2018 was invalid for not complying with CBDT Instruction No. 225/157/2017/ITA-II dated 23-06-2017, which mandated three specific formats of notices for (a) complete scrutiny, (b) limited scrutiny, or (c) compulsory manual scrutiny. The impugned notice did not specify the type of scrutiny & was thus contrary to CBDT instruction, rendering the entire assessment void.
Assessee’s arguments
- The notice was a computer-generated “scrutiny (CASS)” without mentioning whether limited or complete.
- CBDT instructions under s.119 are binding on the Department; non-compliance vitiates jurisdiction.
- Relied on Tapas Kumar Das v. ITO (ITA 1660/Kol/2024 dt. 11-03-2025) & Shib Nath Ghosh v. ITO (ITA 1812/Kol/2024) where similar notices were held invalid.
Revenue’s stand
