TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 286
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....43(3) of the Act and consequent revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act are without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed." 03. We find that the issue raised in the additional ground is with respect to invalid issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 22.09.2019, without confirming to the CBDT Instruction F.no. 225/157/2017/ITA-II dated 23.06.2017 and thereafter the same is claimed to be invalid thereby rendering them the entire proceeding u/s 143(3) of the Act and also the consequent revisionary proceedings u/s 263 of the Act to be without jurisdiction and invalid. We note that the issue raised is purely legal issue which goes to the root of the matter and also that no further verification of facts is required to be done from any quarter whatsoever. Therefore, we are inclined to admit the same for adjudication as also the case of the assessee squarely covered by the decision of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs CIT in 187 ITR 688(SC) and National Thermal Power Co. Ltd v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC). 04. The ld. AR vehemently submitted before us that the CBDT vide instruction no. F.No.225/157/2017/ITA-II dated 23.06.2017, prescribed that the notices u/s 143(2) of the Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the very first stage because, the system director could not make the necessary changes in the ITBA Module and hence the notice was issued in a different format. 07. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that though the appeal filed before us is against the revisionary order as passed by the ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act whereby the PCIT set aside the order of assessment framed u/s 143(3) dated 10.04.2021 for two reasons (i) provision for bad and doubtful debts made by the assessee were in fact inadmissible to the tune of Rs.4,32,92,508/- and (ii) the excess addition to fixed assets by Rs.65,69,270/- which remained unexplained and resulted into under assessment of income to that extent. The assessee has raised additional ground claiming therein that the assessment framed u/s 143(3) dated 10.04.2021, was framed consequent to issuance of notice u/s 143(2) read with section 12E of the Income Tax rules, 1962, dated 22.02.2019, which was not issued in accordance with the CBDT Instruction F.no. 225/157/2017/ITA-II dated 23.06.2017 which for ready reference is extracted the CBDT instruction:- "F.No.225/157/2017/1TA.11 Government....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the issuance of notice, we are off the considered view that the assessment framed on the basis of said notice is invalid and so is the revisionary proceeding based on the said assessment framed. The case of the assessee find support from the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Srimanta Kumar Shit (supra) as we referred to above. For the sake of ready reference, the operative part is reproduced below:- "12. A perusal of the above format would indicate that though in the heading, it exhibits limited scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection) but thereafter in the first paragraph, it only talks of scrutiny and then in second paragraph, it talks upon the opportunity being provided to the assessee what he wants to say in support of the return. It is pertinent to observe that in para one, the ld. AO has to identify the issues for examination. If this proforma is being read with the first paragraph of the assessment order, then, it would reveal that in the third line of the first paragraph, ld. Assessing Officer has used the expression "this return was selected for scrutiny in "CASH" on the issue of cash deposits during demonetization period". It would indicate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....converting a limited scrutiny assessment into a full scrutiny. Accordingly, we quash the assessment order. Since we have quashed the assessment order, therefore, we do not deem it necessary to adjudicate the other issues on merit because they become academic in nature. Accordingly, we allow the appeal of the assessee." 010. Similarly in the case of Shib Nath Ghosh Vs. ITO (supra), the coordinate Bench has decided the issue in favour of the assessee by observing and holding as under:- After hearing both the sides and the materials available on record, we find that the notice issued u/s 143(2) dated 9th August, 2017 was not in any of the formats as provided in the CBDT instruction F.No.225/157/2017/ITA-II dated 23.06.2017. We have examined the notice, copy of which is available at page no.1 of the Paper Book and find that the same is not as per the format of CBDT Instruction F.No. 225/157/2017/ITA-II dated 23.06.2017 as stated above. In our opinion, the instruction issued by the CBDT are mandatory and binding on the Income tax authorities failing which the proceedings would be rendered as invalid. Hon'ble Apex Court in case of UCO Bank (supra) held that the circular i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pra), held as under:- "Held, allowing the appeal, (1) that even assuming that the intention of the Central Board of Direct Taxes was to restrict the time for selection of the cases for scrutiny to a period of three months, It could not be said that the selection in the case of the assessee was made within the period. The return was filed on October 29, 2004, and the case was selected for scrutiny on July 6, 2005. By any process of reasoning, it was not open to the Tribunal to come to a finding that the Department acted within the four corners of Circulars Nos. 9 and 10 Issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes The circulars were evidently violated. The circulars were binding upon the Department under section 119." Therefore, case of the assessee is therefore squarely covered by the ratio laid down in the above decisions and respectfully following the same, we are inclined to hold the assessment as invalid being based on the invalid issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. The first additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed. Since we have held the notice issued u/s 143(2) as invalid and so the consequential assessment framed, we are not adjudicat....