PANKHURI MISHRA,GANGTOK vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), GANGTOK, GANGTOK

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we find that the assessee has raised an additional ground of appeal challenging the jurisdiction of the AO to make addition. In our opinion the issued raised in the additional ground is a purely a legal issue qua which all the facts are available in the appeal folder and no further verification of facts is required from any quarter whatsoever. In our considered view the assessee is at liberty to raise any legal issue before any appellate authority for the first time even when the same has not been raised before the lower authorities. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decisions of the Apex court in the case of i) Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs CIT in 187 ITR 688, ii) National Thermal Power Co. Ltd v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 and also by the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in PCIT vs. Britannia Industries Ltd. [2017] 396 ITR 677 (Cal). Therefore, we are inclined to admit the same for adjudication.

The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the said ground is purely a legal issue and the assessee is within his legal right to raise the same before any of the appellate authorities at any stage whatsoever. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the

The ld. DR on the other hand submitted that the issue was not raised before any of the authorities below and therefore, may kindly be restored to the file of any of the authorities below for adjudication.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we find that the assessee has raised an additional ground of appeal challenging the validity of the notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act being in an invalid format and in our opinion the issued raised in the additional ground is a purely a legal issue qua which all the facts are available in the appeal folder and no further verification of facts are required from any quarter whatsoever. In our considered view the assessee is at liberty to raise any legal issue before any appellate authority for the first time even when the same has not been raised before the lower authorities. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decisions of the Apex court in the case of i) Jute

The ld. AR vehemently submitted that the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 22.09.2018, does not specify whether it is a limited scrutiny or a complete scrutiny or a compulsory manner scrutiny. The ld. AR submitted that the CBDT has issued specific instruction vide instruction no. F. No. 225/157/2017/ITA-II Dated 23-06-2017, that the notice u/s 143(2) can be issued in one of the three format which specifically mentioned and prescribed but the present notice issued is not in accordance with such said instruction and therefore, the assessment framed consequently is invalid and void ab initio. The ld. AR in defense of his argument relied on the decision of Tapas Kumar Das Vs. ITO in vide order dated 11.03.2025 for A.Y. 2017-18, wherein similar issue has been decided in favour of the assessee. The ld. Counsel for the assessee also relied on various decisions which read as under: - in case of Shib Nath Ghosh 2. in case of M/s Durga Automotives Pvt. Ltd. 3. ITA No. 763/KOL/2024 in case of Nadia District Central Co-operative bank ltd.” The ld. AR therefore prayed that the additional ground raised by the assessee may kindly be allowed.

The ld. DR on the other hand submitted that this is a computer- generated notice and the non-mentioning of the fact of either limited or complete scrutiny or compulsory manual scrutiny would not render

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that undisputedly the notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 22.09.2018, specifies only computer aided scrutiny selection which neither mentioned it either to be a limited or a complete scrutiny nor compulsory manual scrutiny. Thus, the said notice has been issued in violation of the instruction issued by CBDT as noted above. In our opinion, the revenue authorities have to follow the instruction issued by CBDT and violation thereto would certainly render the notice as invalid with the result all the consequential proceeding would also be invalid. The case of the assessee find support from the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Tapas Kumar Das Vs. ITO (supra), wherein a similar issue has been decided in favour of the assessee. The operative part of the same is extracted below: -

Since, we have allowed the appeal of the assessee on legal issue, the other grounds raised on merit are not being adjudicated at this stage and are being left open to be decided at the later stage if need arises for the same.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.