IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER No.2204/KOL/2025 आयकर अपील सं/ITA ( निर्धारण वर् ा / Assessment Year : 2021-2022)

Ankur Dealcom P. Limited, Vs ITO Ward-10(2), Kolkata C/o S.N.Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2^nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata-700001 PAN No. :AAHCA 2447 F ..

( अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) ( प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

निर्धाररती की ओर स े

/Assessee by Shri Somnath Ghosh, AR रधजस्व की ओर स े

/Revenue by : None : 11/12/2025 सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 11/12/2025 घोषणा की

तारीख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld.

CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 22.07.2025 for the assessment year 2021-22.

2. It was submitted by the Ld.AR that the impugned assessment order would not survive, insofar as in the order u/s.263 of the Act against the said assessment order, the coordinate bench of the Tribunal has categorically held that the notice u/s.143(2) of the Act, dated 20.06.2022 which is culminated in the assessment order dated 23.12.2022, which is an impugned assessment order would not survive, insofar as notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was not in conformity with the CBDT Instruction F.No.225/157/2017/ITA-II dated 23-06-2017. It was the submission that as against the order u/s.263 of the Act the coordinate bench of the Tribunal has already held that notice u/s.143(2) of the Act which has resulted into assessment order dated 23.12.2022, which is the impugned assessment order in this appeal is invalid, the assessment order is liable to be quashed.

3. None represented on behalf of the revenue.

4. A perusal of the order of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case passed in ITA No.197/Kol/2025, order dated

18.07.2025 has in para 6 & 7 has held as follows :-

06. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessment has been framed in this case u/s 143(3) vide order dated 23.12.2022 by NFAC, assessing the income of the assessee at ₹8,60,49,114/- as against the returned income of ₹9,35,020/-. We note that in this case the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 26.08.2022, which apparently is not in accordance with the C.B.D.T. Instruction F. No. 225/157/2017/ITA-II Dated 23-06-2017. We note that in terms of the above CBDT instruction, the notice u/s 143(2) has to be in any of the three formats namely; (i) Limited Scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection) (ii) Complete Scrutiny (computer Aided Scrutiny Selection) and (iii) Compulsory Manual Scrutiny. Since, the notice has been issued in an invalid format which is obviously invalid and therefore, any assessment based on the said notice is also invalid and bad in law. We note that the assessee has not challenged the assessment proceedings on this issue before any higher appellate forum, however, the assessee is within its legitimate and legal right to challenge the validity of the assessment in the collateral proceedings meaning thereby even during the appeal proceedings before the Tribunal against the revisionary order passed u/s 263 of the Act by the ld. PCIT, the validity of the assessment passed u/s 143(3) could be challenged. Therefore, we hold that the assessment passed u/s 143(3) is invalid and nullity in the eyes of law. Further, we also hold that the revisionary proceedings based upon an invalid order is also invalid and bad in law. The case of the assessee find support from the decision of this Tribunal in case of Nadia District Central Co- operative Bank Ltd. Vs. PCIT (supra), wherein the co-ordinate Bench has held as under: -

“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 or