Sunil Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata)
Notice Missing ‘Limited or Complete Scrutiny’ Label? Entire Assessment Becomes Void Invalid 143(2) Notice = No
This appeal deals with a crucial jurisdictional defect that strikes at the very root of the assessment – the validity of the notice issued under Section 143(2).
Assessee’s appeal reached the ITAT with a delay of 288 days, but the delay was supported by an affidavit explaining genuine reasons, & even the Department did not object. Tribunal, guided by the principle that matters must be decided on merit rather than technicality, condoned the delay.
Once admitted, Assessee raised an additional legal ground – that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) was void ab initio because the 143(2) notice itself was invalid. He pointed out that the notice (dated 10.08.2018), a copy of which was on record, contained only the phrase “Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection”. It did not specify whether the case was Limited Scrutiny, Complete Scrutiny or Compulsory Manual Scrutiny.
This omission directly violated CBDT Instruction F.No.225/157/2017/ITA-II dated 23.06.2017, which prescribes mandatory formats for 143(2) notices & clearly requires AO to specify the type of scrutiny. These instructions are issued under Section 119, & as held by the Supreme Court in UCO Bank, CBDT circulars/instructions are binding on income-tax authorities. Violation of such instructions renders the departmental action illegal.
