N.C. HORE,SILIGURI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1),, SILIGURI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1795/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 January 2026AY 2017-20183 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the notice under section 143(2) and the assessment order did not explicitly state it was a limited scrutiny. Furthermore, the assessee did not fully cooperate with the assessment proceedings and failed to comply with notices under section 133(6). Therefore, for the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the AO for readjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an assessment order, arguing that the notice under section 143(2) lacked clarity regarding the type of scrutiny and that the Assessing Officer (AO) exceeded the scope of the assessment. Multiple notices under section 143(2) were issued by different officers.

What were the issues?

Validity of assessment proceedings due to unclear section 143(2) notice and whether the AO exceeded the scope of limited scrutiny, coupled with non-compliance by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 133(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 22.07.2025 passed by the ld.Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Chennai for the assessment year 2017-2018.

2.

It was submitted by the Ld.AR that the notice u/s.143(2) of the Act had been issued on 14.08.2018 by ITO Ward-2(4), Siliguri wherein there was no details of the type of scrutiny that was being proposed. The notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was also issued on 26.09.2018 by ACIT, Circle-3(1), Siliguri wherein it is not mentioned whether it is scrutiny or limited. It was submission that in the assessment order the AO has mentioned that the reason for selection was reduction in the revised income. It was the submission that this was a case of limited scrutiny. It was the submission that the AO has gone beyond the issue. It was submission that the assessment order is liable to be quashed.

1.

In reply, the Ld. Sr.DR submitted that this is not a case of limited scrutiny insofar as limited scrutiny is not mentioned anywhere. It was submission that the assessee has not complied with all the notices.

4.

It was then submitted by the Ld.AR that multiple notices have been issued u/s.143(2) of the Act by multiple officers. It was submission that even on this ground the assessment is liable to be quashed.

5.

I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly shows that the assessment order has been passed by the ACIT, Circle-3(1), Siliguri. The notice u/s.143(2) of the Act has been issued on 26/09/2018 by ACIT, Circle-3(1), Siliguri. The notice u/s.143(2) of the Act does not talk of the limited scrutiny neither the assessment order talk of the limited scrutiny is only gives a reason for the selection. When its the case of limited scrutiny obviously the notice will also speak of limited scrutiny.

6.

A perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that the assessee is not co-operated in the assessment proceedings introduced all the details brought forward by the AO as has been mentioned by the AO in his assessment order. It is also noticed that notices u/s.133(6) of the Act issued have not been complied with. This being so, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the AO for readjudication after granting assessee adequate opportunity from being heard.

More judgments on Section 133(6)

All 7,227 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133(6) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →