IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM ITA No.763/KOL/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19)

Nadia District Central Co-

PCIT-1, operative Bank Ltd.

Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Samabay Building M.M. Ghosh Chowringhee Square, Street, Krishnanagar, Vs.

Kolkata-700069 Kolkata-741101 West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (

Respondent)

PAN No. AAALN0139M Assessee by : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AR &

Shri P.K. Roy & Puja Somani, ARs Revenue by : Shri P.N. Barnwal, DR Date of hearing: 07.01.2025 Date of pronouncement : 15.01.2025

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 21.12.2023 for the AY 2018-19.

02. The assessee has challenged the exercise of revisionary jurisdiction by ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act as invalid without satisfying twin conditions as envisaged u/s 263 of the Act. Besides the assessee has raised an additional ground of appeal, which is extracted below:-

“That the ld. AO erred in issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 22.09.2019

without complying to the CBDT Instruction F.No.225/157/2017/ITA-II dated

23.06.2017 and so the notice issued u/s 143(2) is not valid as per law and

hence the entire assessment proceedings u/s 143(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 to be issued in a specific format. The ld. AR submitted that the said CBDT instruction is mandatory in nature and the authorities below are under application to comply with the said instruction. The ld. AR stated that the said instruction has prescribed three formats for issuing notices namely (i) limited scrutiny (computer aided scrutiny selection), (ii) complete scrutiny (computer aided scrutiny selection) and (iii) Compulsory manual selection.

05. The ld. Counsel for the assessee also filed before us the copies of these notices u/s 143(2) of the Act in three formats, from page no. 2 to 4 of the paper book. Thereafter, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also filed a physical copy of the notice actually issued u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 22.02.2019 and submitted that the said notice is not conforming to any of the three formats of notices to be issued u/s 143(2) of the Act as mandated by the CBDT. The ld. AR therefore, prayed that the assessment framed on the basis of that notice is invalid and nullity in the eyes of the law and therefore, all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom including the revisionary proceedings are invalid and not sustainable in the eyes of law. The ld. AR therefore prayed that the same are liable to be quashed. In defense of his argument, the ld. AR relied on the decisions of the co-ordinate Benches in case of Srimanta Kumar Shit Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 1911/KOL/2024 vide order dated 19.11.2024 for A.Y. 2017-18 and i