IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “GUWAHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member and Shri Manmohan Das, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2017-18 Assam Industrial Development Corporation Ltd……................……….……Appellant A-4, R G Baruah Road, Ambikagiri Nagar, Guwahati, Assam-781024.

[PAN: AACCA4720A]

vs.

ACIT, Circle-3, Guwahati.………..…………………………...……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by:

Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate & Amalan Bhadra, FCA, appeared on behalf of the appellant.

Shri Sanjay Jha, CIT, appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

Date of concluding the hearing : November 18, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : November 20, 2025

ORDER

Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member:

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the CIT(Appeals)-2, Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld.

CIT(A)”] dated 27.02.2020 for the AY 2017-18.

2. At the outset, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has raised legal issue challenged the assessment framed based on notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act which is not in accordance with instruction no. F. No. 225/157/2017/ITA-II Dated 23-

06-2017, issued by the CBDT.

3. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 22.03.2018, declaring total income at ₹38,482690/- and the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS and accordingly notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 27.08.2018.

Finally, the ld. AO assessed the income at ₹5,18,50,504/- vide order dated 24.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act.

4. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 24.12.2019, is invalid and ex-facie, null and void as the same is passed in consequence to invalid notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 27.08.2018, which is not as per the CBDT Instruction no. F. No. 225/157/2017/ITA-II Dated 23- 06-2017 and accordingly, the assessment order passed consequently is void ab initio, ultra virus and nullity in the eyes of law.

5. The ld. AR vehemently submitted that the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act does not specify whether it is a limited scrutiny or a complete scrutiny or a compulsory manual scrutiny. The ld. AR submitted that the CBDT has issued specific instruction vide instruction no. F. No. 225/157/2017/ITA-II Dated 23-06-2017, that the notice u/s 143(2) shall be issued in one of the three formats which are specifically mentioned and prescribed but the present notice issued is not in accordance with such said instruction and therefore, the assessment framed consequently is invalid and void ab initio. The ld. AR in defense of his arguments relied on the decisions of Tapas Kumar Das Vs. ITO in ITA No. 1660/KOL/2024 vide order dated 11.03.2025 for A.Y. 2017- 18 and Ashok Kumar Agarwal and others HUF Vs ACIT Cir 34 ITA No. 1/Kol/2025 A.Y. 2017-18, wherein similar issue has been decided in favour of the assessee. The ld. AR therefore prayed that the additional ground raised by the assessee may kindly be allowed.

6. The ld. DR on the other hand submitted that this is a computer- generated notice and the non-mentioning of the fact of either limited or complete scrutiny or compulsory manual scrutiny would not render the issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act as invalid. Therefore, additional ground raised by the assessee may kindly be dismissed.

7. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that undisputedly the notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 27.08.2018, specifies only computer aided scrutiny selection which neither mentioned it either to be a limited or a complete scrutiny nor compulsory manual scrutiny. Thus, the said notice has been issued in violation of the instruction issued by CBDT as noted above. In our opinion, the revenue authorities have to follow the instruction issued by CBDT and violation thereto would certainly render the notice as invalid with the result all the consequentia