https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782000 ITAT Kolkata-AT allowed the assessee's appeal. The assessee had been selected for CASS scrutiny for cash deposits during demonetisation and was subjected to additions under ss. 69A and 40A(3), which were upheld by CIT(A). On appeal, the Tribunal admitted an additional ground challenging the validity of the notice under s. 143(2), relying on SC precedent permitting such grounds at the appellate stage. ITAT held that the s. 143(2) notice was not in conformity with CBDT instructions, rendering the notice and the consequent assessment order invalid. en-us Wed, 23 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 22 Nov 2025 10:32:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782000 ITAT Kolkata-AT allowed the assessee's appeal. The assessee had been selected for CASS scrutiny for cash deposits during demonetisation and was subjected to additions under ss. 69A and 40A(3), which were upheld by CIT(A). On appeal, the Tribunal admitted an additional ground challenging the validity of the notice under s. 143(2), relying on SC precedent permitting such grounds at the appellate stage. ITAT held that the s. 143(2) notice was not in conformity with CBDT instructions, rendering the notice and the consequent assessment order invalid. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 23 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782000