Jurisdictional defect in scrutiny notice under section 143(2) rendered the assessment unsustainable under the e-proceeding framework.

A scrutiny notice under section 143(2) issued by an officer lacking jurisdiction and not conforming to the CBDT-prescribed e-proceeding format was treated as invalid. The prescribed manner of issuing such notices was applied as mandatory, so the defect was not regarded as a mere irregularity. The text further states that section 292BB did not cure the absence of a valid notice from the proper authority. As a result, the assessment framed on the basis of that notice was quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the notice issued under section 143(2) by an officer lacking jurisdiction, and not in conformity with the prescribed e-proceeding format, was valid, and whether the assessment framed on its basis could survive.

Analysis: The notice under section 143(2) was found to have been issued by an authority having no jurisdiction over the assessee. The notice was also held to be inconsistent with the CBDT-prescribed format for scrutiny notices issued through the e-proceeding framework. Following the coordinate bench decisions relied upon, the requirement to issue the scrutiny notice in the prescribed manner was treated as mandatory. The defect was not regarded as a mere irregularity, and the deemed-validity principle under section 292BB did not cure the absence of a valid notice emanating from the proper authority.

Conclusion: The notice under section 143(2) was held to be invalid, and the assessment framed pursuant to that notice was quashed. The appeal succeeded in favour of the assessee.

---