s.143(2) requires prima facie satisfaction; proviso's 12-month limit mandatory; late scrutiny notice invalid despite participation

HC dismissed revenue's appeal, upholding CIT(A) and Tribunal. It held that s.143(2) requires prima facie satisfaction before issuing a scrutiny notice and the proviso barring notice after 12 months from end of month of filing is mandatory. Participation in proceedings does not waive statutory limitation. Departmental circulars are binding and merely explain the law. Notice issued beyond the prescribed period rendered the assessment invalid and could not be cured by acquiescence.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act due to notice issued beyond the prescribed time limit.
2. Interpretation of the mandatory nature of the limitation prescribed under section 143(2) of the Act for serving notice.

Issue 1:
The appellant-Revenue challenged the validity of the assessment under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, contending that the notice under section 143(2) was issued beyond the statutory time limit, making the assessment void ab initio. The appellant argued that the assessee's failure to challenge the notice before the Assessing Officer and raising it only before the Commissioner (Appeals) did not render the assessment invalid due to acquiescence and waiver. However, the court held that the Commissioner (Appeals) has the same powers as the Assessing Officer and can entertain legal issues at any stage. The court emphasized that the notice was indeed issued beyond the prescribed time limit, making the assessment void.

Issue 2:
The second issue revolved around the mandatory nature of the limitation prescribed under section 143(2) of the Act for serving notice. The court analyzed the language of the provision and the historical context of the statutory scheme. It highlighted that the proviso to section 143(2) sets a mandatory limitation of twelve months for issuing the notice, as explained in departmental Circulars. The court emphasized that the circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes provide contemporaneous exposition of the legal position and must be adhered to by the departmental authorities. The court concluded that the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal correctly interpreted the statutory scheme, which is clear and in line with the circulars, dismissing the appeal.

The judgment underscored the mandatory nature of the limitation prescribed under section 143(2) for serving notices and upheld the assessment as void due to the notice being issued beyond the statutory time limit. The court's detailed analysis of the legal provisions and circulars emphasized the importance of adhering to prescribed timelines in the assessment process, ensuring procedural integrity and legal compliance.

---