MAN MOHAN GOENKA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 43(1),, KOLKATA

It was submitted by the ld. AR that the notice issued u/s.143(2) of the Act in the case of the assessee on 10.08.2018 is not valid in line with the Instruction issued by the CBDT in Instruction F No. 225/157/2017/ITA-II Dated 23.06.2017. Copy of the notice issued u/s.143(2) of the Act dated 23.09.2019 is reproduced as below :-

Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Durga Automotives Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, passed in vide order dated 22.04.2025, wherein the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in para 6 to 12 has held as follows :- 6. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the format of the 143(2) notice has been provided by the CBDT along with a note on e- proceeding which are as follows:

It was a submission that as the notice issued u/s. 143(2) in the case of the assessee which has been extracted above is not in conformity with the notice issued u/s. 143(2) as prescribed in the e- proceeding format. The notice u/s. 14392) is liable to be quashed. It was the submission that consequently the assessment order is also liable to be set aside. The Ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Sajal Biswas Vs. ITO, dated 26.03.2025 wherein in para 9 and 10 the coordinate bench of this Tribunal has held as under: 09.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 10.08.2018, 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:- “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 केअिुसारआपकेद्वाराटदिांक 269322761301017 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 तकसाक्ष्यप्रस्तुतकरिेअथवासाक्ष्यप्रस्तुतकरािेकाअवसरप्रदािककयाजारहाहैजजसपरआ पउक्तआयकरवववरणीकेसमथसिमेंनिभसरहैं/ 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. 3. उपयुसक्तनिटदसष्िप्रमाण / सूचिाकोआपकोऑिलाइिमाध्यमसेइलेक्रॉनिकरूपमें 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. नििासरणकायसवाहीकेदौराि, यटदआवश्यकहोगातोसूचिा 4. / दस्तावेजहेतुववशेर्प्रश्िावली (यों) याअधियाचिा (यााँ) कोबादमेंजारीककयाजाएगा। 4. In course of assessment proceedings, if required, specific questionnaire(s) or requisition(s) for information/document shall be issued subsequently. कृपयाध्यािदेंककयटदआपकेपासई-फाइललंगिाताहैतोआपकेललएपैरा 5. 3 लागूहै।आपकेद्वारास्वयंअपिािातािबिालेिेतकनििासरणकायसवाहीआपकेद्वारावखणसत कीगईई-मे is created by you, assessment proceedings shall be carried out either through your specified e-mail account or manually (if e-mail is not available). संलग्िक : यचौिरर Enclosure as above 7. In our opinion, the notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act which is not in the prescribed format as provided under the Act is an invalid notice and accordingly, all the subsequent proceedings thereto would be invalid and void ab initio. The case of the assessee find support from the decision of Shib Nath Ghosh Vs. ITO in for A.Y. 2018- 19 vide order dated 29.11.2024, wherein the co-ordinate Bench has held as under:- “10. After hearing both the sides and the materials available on record, we find that the notice issued u/s 143(2) dated 9th August, 2017 was not in any of the formats as provided in the CBDT instruction F.No.225/157/2017/ITA-II dated 23.06.2017. We have examined the notice, copy of which is available at page no.1 of the Paper Book and find that the same is not as per the format of CBDT Instruction F.No. 225/157/2017/ITA-II dated 23.06.2017 as stated above. In our opinion, the instruction issued by the CBDT are mandatory and binding on the Income tax authorities failing which the proceedings would be rendered as invalid. Hon'ble Apex Court in case of UCO Bank (supra) held that the circular issued by CBDT in exercise of its statutory powers u/s 119 of the Act, are binding on the authorities. The Hon'ble Apex court held as under:- “The Central Board of Direct Taxes under section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has power, inter alia, to tone down the rigour of the law and ensure a fair enforcement of its provisions, by issuing circulars in exercise of its statutory powers under section 119 of the Act which are binding on the authorities in the administration of the Act. Under section 119(2)(a), however, the circulars as contemplated therein cannot be adverse to the assessee. The power is given for the purpose of just, proper and efficient management of the work of assessment and in public interest. It is a beneficial power given to the Board for proper administration of fiscal law so that undue hardship may not be caused to the assessee and the fiscal laws may be correctly applied. Hard cases Which can be properly categorized as belonging to a class, can thus be given the benefit of relaxation of law by Issuing circulars binding on the taxing authorities. In order to aid proper determination of the income of money lenders and banks, the Central Board of Direct Taxes issued a circular dated October 6, 1952, providing that where interest accruing on doubtful debts is credited to a suspense account, It need not be included in the assessee's taxable income, provided the Income-tax Officer is satisfied that recovery is practically improbable. Twenty-six years later, on June 20, 1978, in view of the judgment of the Kerala High Court In STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE v. CIT [1977] 110 ITR 336, the Board by another circular, withdrew with immediate effect the earlier circular. However, by circular dated October 9, 1984, the Board decided that Interest in respect of doubtful debts credited to suspense account by banking companies would be subjected to tax but Interest charged in an account where there has been no recovery for three consecutive accounting years would not be subjected to tax in the fourth year and onwards. The circular also stated that if there is any recovery in the fourth year or later, the actual amount recovered only would be subjected to tax in the respective years. This procedure would apply to assessment year 1979- 80 and onwards.”