IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM (Assessment Year:2018-19)

Milani Swanirbhar Gosthi Income Tax Officer, Nil Shyamnagar, Banjetia Ward 42(1), Murshidabad Berhampore, 39 R.N. Tagore Road, Vs.

Murshidbad-742101, Behrampur, Murshidabad-742101 West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (

Respondent)

PAN No. AAALM0919N Assessee by : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, &

Ms. Sonam Bajoria, ARs Revenue by : Shri Sandeep Lakra, DR Date of hearing: 30.07.2025 Date of pronouncement: 28.08.2025

O R D E R

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT (A)”] dated 16.01.2025for the AY 2018-19.

2. The issue raised in ground no.1 is against the invalid notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 22.09.2019, in violation of CBDT instruction no. F. No. 225/157/2017/ITA-II Dated 23-06-2017.

3. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on

15.10.2018, declaring total income of ₹19,96,730/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny and accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, along with questionnaire were issued and served upon the assessee. Finally, the assessment was framed vide order dated 18.03.2021, passed u/s 143(3), read with section 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act.

4. In the appellate proceedings, the appeal was decided ex-parte in limine when the assessee failed to comply with the notices issued by the appellate authority.

5. The assessee has challenged the very basis of the assessment on the ground that the statutory notices u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 22.09.2019, was not in conformity with CBDT instruction no. F. No. 225/157/2017/ITA-II Dated 23-06-2017 and therefore, the entire proceedings, including the assessment order framed is nullity and bad in the eyes of law. The ld. AR in defense of his arguments relied on the decision of Tapas Kumar Das Vs. ITO in ITA No. 1660/KOL/2024 vide order dated 11.03.2025 for 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, 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 22.09.2019, specified 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 consequential proceedings would also be invalid. The case of the assessee find support from the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Tapas Kumar Das Vs. ITO (supra), wherein a similar issue has been decided in favour of the assessee. The operative part of the same is extracted below: -

“After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that particularly the notice was issued u/s 143(2) of the Act, a copy of which is available at page no. 25 of the Paper Book. We note that the said notice has not been issued in consonance with the CBDT Instruction F No. 225/157/2017/ITA-II Dated 23.06.2017. The said notice is extracted below for the sake of ready reference:-

““आमकरअधिनियम 1961 कीिारा 143(2) केअिीििोटिस Notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 संवीक्षा (