PASRINITA MOHAPATRA,CUTTACK vs. DY.CIT, CIRCLE 2(1), CUTTACK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 610/CTK/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 December 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by previous decisions of the Tribunal and the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. These decisions held that if a notice u/s.143(2) is not in line with CBDT instructions, it is liable to be quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2017-2018. The assessee's counsel argued that the notice issued u/s.143(2) of the Act violated a CBDT notification.

What were the issues?

Whether the notice issued u/s.143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was valid and in compliance with the relevant CBDT notification.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

  • 461 ITR 289
    461 ITR 289 · 2024
    3 citing

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

Hearing: 03/12/2025Pronounced: 03/12/2025

आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi dated 15/09/2025 for the assessment year 2017-2018. 2. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the notice issued u/s.143(2) of the Act in the case of the assessee was in violation of the notification issued by the CBDT in No.225/157/2017/ITA-II, dated 23/06/2017. The copy of the notice issued 143(2) of the Act was shown which reads as follows:-

3.

It was the submission that the issue is now squarely covered by the decision of the Kolkata Bench of this Tribunal in the case of the Adyashakti Himghar Pvt. Ltd. passed in dated 07/10/2025 as also the decision of the Delhi Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Anita Garg in dated 30/07/2025. It was also the submission that under similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Crystal Phosphates Ltd., reported in [2024] 461 ITR 289 Punjab & Haryana) has held that if the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act is not in line with the instruction issued by the CBDT for selection of cases for scrutiny, the notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act is liable to be quashed as also the scrutiny assessment.

4.

In reply, the Ld. Sr DR submitted that the notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act is not a statutory notice. It was the submission that the requirement is that notice u/s.143(2) of the Act needs to be issued to keep the assessee intimated in regard to the issues that have been taken up for assessment. It was submission that the assessment order is liable to be upheld.

5.

We have considered the rival submissions. As it is noticed that the issue of the notice u/s.143(2) of the Act in relation to the notification issued by the CBDT is now squarely covered by the decision of the coordinate bench of this Tribunal, referred to supra, and as it is noticed that the Honb’ble Panjab & Haryana High Court has in the case of Crystal Phosphates Ltd, referred to supra, wherein the Hon’ble High Court has categorically held that since the instruction issued by the CBDT has not been complied with the Tribunal has rightly quashed the notice u/s.143(2)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →