Abhijit Dhar Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata)
Kolkata ITAT quashed the assessment on the ground that the notice issued u/s 143(2) was not in conformity with the prescribed CBDT format, thereby rendering the entire assessment proceedings invalid.
Assessee challenged the validity of the scrutiny proceedings by raising an additional legal ground before Tribunal that the notice issued u/s 143(2) dated 22.09.2018 was defective. The notice merely referred to “Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection” without specifying whether it was a case of limited scrutiny, complete scrutiny, or compulsory manual scrutiny, as mandated by CBDT Instruction No. F.No. 225/157/2017/ITA-II dated 23.06.2017.
Assessee contended that the omission of this critical classification vitiated the notice & all subsequent proceedings. Though the issue was raised for the first time before Tribunal, reliance was placed on SC decisions in Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT (187 ITR 688) & NTPC Ltd. vs. CIT (229 ITR 383), as well as Calcutta HC in PCIT vs. Britannia Industries Ltd. (396 ITR 677), which permit legal grounds to be taken at any stage of appellate proceedings. Assessee argued that since CBDT instructions are binding on the department, the non-compliant notice makes the assessment void ab initio. Reliance was placed on Tribunal decisions in Tapas Kumar Das vs. ITO (ITA No.1660/KOL/2024, AY 2017-18) & Shib Nath Ghosh vs. ITO (ITA No.1812/KOL/2024, AY 2018-19), where identical defects in 143(2) notices led to assessments being quashed.
