2025 (7) TMI 1907 - AT - Income Tax

Notice under section 143(2) invalid for not following CBDT format; assessment under section 143(3) void ab initio

ANITA GARG Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, Ward 2 (3) (4), Uttar Pradesh.

ITAT held that the notice issued under section 143(2) was not in the CBDT-prescribed format (only stated computer-aided scrutiny without specifying ... Validity of the assessment made based on the notice issued u/s 143(2) the same is admitted for adjudication - contention of the assessee that the notice issued u/s 143(2) dated 22.09.2018 by the AO is in violation of the CBDT instruction dated 23.06.2017 as it is not in the specified format - HELD THAT:- As decided in Hind Cyramics Pvt. Ltd. [2025 (5) TMI 786 - ITAT KOLKATA] undisputedly the notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 09.08.2018, 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 [2025 (3) TMI 1481 - ITAT KOLKATA]. Thus assessment framed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) dated 27.12.2019 pursuant to the notice issued u/s 143(2) dated 22.09.2018 which was not in the prescribed format as notified by the CBDT, is bad in law and void ab initio and the same is hereby quashed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether a notice issued under section 143(2) that does not conform to the revised formats mandated by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) instruction is valid and capable of conferring jurisdiction to the Assessing Officer to proceed with scrutiny assessment. 2. Whether the CBDT instruction issued under the Board's statutory power is mandatory and binding on income-tax authorities, and whether non-compliance renders subsequent proceedings void ab initio. 3. Whether, upon quashing the assessment for invalidity of the section 143(2) notice, other substantive grounds of assessment require adjudication or become academic. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Validity of a section 143(2) notice not in prescribed CBDT format Legal framework: Section 143(2) authorises issuance of a notice for scrutiny of a return; the CBDT issued an instruction prescribing mandatory revised formats for all scrutiny notices to be issued under section 143(2). Precedent treatment: The Tribunal adopted the position that CBDT instructions issued under the Board's statutory power are binding on tax authorities; co-ordinate Benches have quashed assessments where notices were not in the prescribed format. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that the impugned notice specified only 'computer aided scrutiny selection' and omitted any designation as limited scrutiny, complete scrutiny, or compulsory manual scrutiny as required by the prescribed formats. The defect was not controverted by Revenue. The Tribunal reasoned that adherence to the prescribed format is a jurisdictional requirement because the format conveys the nature and scope of scrutiny and thereby informs both the assessee and the AO of the limits of the proceeding. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A notice under section 143(2) not issued in the CBDT-mandated format is invalid and cannot confer jurisdiction, rendering consequent assessment proceedings void ab initio. Observations about the practicalities of computer-generated notices and e-proceedings constitute obiter to the extent they address implementation difficulties. Conclusion: The notice under section 143(2) that did not conform to the prescribed CBDT format was held invalid; the assessment framed pursuant thereto was quashed. Issue 2 - Binding nature of CBDT instruction and consequences of non-compliance Legal framework: The CBDT issues administrative instructions under its statutory power to provide guidance and facilitate fair and efficient administration of tax law; such instructions cannot be adversarial to an assessee and are intended to be binding on income-tax authorities. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal relied on established authority recognising the binding character of Board instructions issued under the Board's statutory powers and on co-ordinate Benches that have applied this principle to invalidate non-conforming notices. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal held that the instruction prescribing the formats for section 143(2) notices is mandatory. Failure to comply with the instruction amounted to a breach of a binding administrative requirement; because the instruction defines the procedural form of a jurisdiction-conferring notice, violation of it undermines the legal validity of the notice and all consequential proceedings. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - CBDT instructions concerning the mandatory form of scrutiny notices are binding on the revenue authorities; non-compliance renders the notice and subsequent proceedings invalid. Any commentary about the rationale for the Board's power or historical examples of Board instructions is explanatory obiter. Conclusion: Non-compliance with the CBDT instruction regarding the prescribed format is fatal to the validity of the notice; the instruction is mandatory and binding on tax authorities. Issue 3 - Effect of quashing assessment on other grounds Legal framework: If an assessment is quashed as being void ab initio for lack of jurisdiction, consequential substantive additions and other contested determinations stand vitiated unless and until a valid proceeding is instituted. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal followed the approach of co-ordinate Benches in treating subsidiary grounds as unnecessary to decide once the threshold jurisdictional defect is established. Interpretation and reasoning: Having held the section 143(2) notice invalid and the assessment void, the Tribunal declined to adjudicate on merits of other grounds raised by the assessee since those grounds had become academic in consequence of quashing the assessment. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Once an assessment is quashed for want of jurisdiction due to an invalid notice, adjudication on other substantive grounds is unnecessary at that stage and may be left open for decision in any future valid proceedings. Conclusion: Other grounds were not decided as they became academic following quashing of the assessment; they remain open for adjudication if a valid proceeding is later initiated. Cross-references and application The Tribunal expressly noted that the facts were similar to several co-ordinate Bench decisions and, relying upon those decisions and the binding nature of the CBDT instruction, applied the same legal principles to quash the assessment. The Tribunal followed that consistent line of authority in reaching its conclusion.