ROHIT SETH,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 30(4),, KOLKATA
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The tribunal, admitting the additional ground, found that the Section 143(2) notice was indeed issued in violation of mandatory CBDT instructions. Following precedents from co-ordinate benches, it ruled that such a defective notice makes the assessment invalid and quashed it.
What were the facts?
The assessee challenged the validity of a Section 143(2) notice issued by the ITO for AY 2017-18, arguing that it was not in the format prescribed by CBDT instructions because it failed to specify whether the scrutiny was limited, complete, or compulsory manual. The Ld. AR contended that this omission rendered the subsequent assessment invalid and void ab initio.
What were the issues?
Whether a notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act is invalid if it fails to specify the type of scrutiny (limited, complete, or manual) as mandated by CBDT instructions.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 143(2),Section 119,Section 119(2)(a)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE v. CIT68 citing110 ITR 336 · 1977
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 01.05.2025 for the AY 2017-18.
At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee raised an additional ground and submitted that the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 24.09.2018 was issued in an invalid format and not as per the instruction of CBDT vide instruction no. F. No. 225/157/2017/ITA-II Dated 23-06-2017.
The ld. AR vehemently submitted that the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 24.09.2018, does not specify whether it is a limited scrutiny or a complete scrutiny or a compulsory manual scrutiny. The ld. AR submitted that the CBDT has issued specific instruction vide
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 the issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act as invalid. Therefore, additional ground raised by the assessee may kindly be dismissed.
I note that issue raised by the counsel of the assessee is a legal issue challenging the validity of statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act . Accordingly I admit the additional ground for adjudication.
After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, I find that undisputedly the notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 24.09.2018, 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 “After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that particularly the notice was issued u/s 143(2) of the Act, a copy of which is available at page no. 25 of the Paper Book. We note that the said notice has not been issued in consonance with the CBDT Instruction F No. 225/157/2017/ITA-II Dated 23.06.2017. The said notice is extracted below for the sake of ready reference:- ““आमकरअधिनियम 1961 कीिारा 143(2) केअिीििोटिस Notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 संवीक्षा (कंप्यूिरआिाररतसंवीक्षाचयि Scrutiny (Computer Alded Scrutiny Selection) महोदय/महोदया/ भेससस, Sir/Madam/ M/s, आपकोसूधचतककयाजाताहैककनििासरणवर्स केपावतीसंख्या 2017-18 269322761301017 केअिुसारआपकेद्वाराटदिांक 30/10/2017 कोदाखिलकीगईआयकरवववरणीकोसंवीक्षाकेललएचुिागयाहै। This is for your kind information that the return of income filed by you for assessment year 2017-18 vide ack, no. 269322761301017 on 30/10/2017 has been selected for Scrutiny. इससंबंिमें, आपकोटदिीक को 2. 16/11/2018 01:00 PM तकसाक्ष्यप्रस्तुतकरिेअथवासाक्ष्यप्रस्तुतकरािेकाअवसरप्रदािककयाजारहाहैजजसपरआपउक्तआयकरवववरणीकेसमथसि मेंनिभसरहैं/ रहेंगे। 2. In this regard, an opportunity is being given to you to produce or cause to produce any evidence on which you may like to rely in support of the said return of income by 16/11/2018 at 01:00 PM. उपयुसक्तनिटदसष्िप्रमाण सूचिाकोआपकोऑिलाइिमाध्यमसेइलेक्रॉनिकरूपमें 3. / परअपिेई- Incometaxindiaefiling.gov.in फाईललंगिाताद्वाराप्रस्तुतककयाजािाहै।बादकीनििासरणकायसवाहीभीआयकरववभागकी 'ई-कायसवाही' सुवविाद्वाराकीजायेगी। 'ई-कायसबाही' परएकसंक्षक्षप्तिोिआपकेसंदभसकेललएसंलग्िहै। 3. The evidence/information specified above has to be furnished online electronically through your E-filing account in incometaxindiaefiling.gov.in. Subsequent assessment proceedings shall also be conducted electronically through the 'E-Proceeding' facility of Income-tax Department. A brief note on 'E-Proceeding' is enclosed for your kind reference.
In the result, the appeal of the is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 15.09.2025.
More judgments on Section 119
- Rajesh Jalan, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 49(1), KolkataITA 1173/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Maheshbhai Parshottambhai Vekariya… vs The ITO, Wad-3(2)(1), AhmedabadITA 2000/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs Jairolia Gems & Jewellery Private Limited…ITA 3831/DEL/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2021-22
- Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central… vs Megha Engineering Infrastructures Limited…ITA 6273/DEL/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- Vijayant Kumar Bansal vs Income Tax Officer Gobindgarh PunjabCWP/31620/202414 Sept 2026
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026