Penalty under section 271(1)(c) deleted where income was disclosed in section 153A returns and remaining additions were only estimated or computationa...
A scrutiny assessment was held invalid because the section 143(2) notice was issued by an officer lacking pecuniary jurisdiction under CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011. The return disclosed a loss above the limit assigned to the Income Tax Officer for metro charges, so jurisdiction vested in the Deputy Commissioner and not the ITO who issued the notice. The Tribunal treated the section 143(2) notice requirement as mandatory, not a curable procedural defect, and quashed the resulting assessment.
A scrutiny assessment was held invalid because the section 143(2) notice was issued by an officer lacking pecuniary jurisdiction under CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011. The return disclosed a loss above the limit assigned to the Income Tax Officer for metro charges, so jurisdiction vested in the Deputy Commissioner and not the ITO who issued the notice. The Tribunal treated the section 143(2) notice requirement as mandatory, not a curable procedural defect, and quashed the resulting assessment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
