Allowing the appeal of the assessee the Tribunal held that ;notice issued under section 143(2)  is  beyond the time prescribed under the law barred by limitationand was thus illegal. There is no ambiguity under the law that the scrutiny assessment is to be framed as per the provisions of section 143. The Instruction No. 13 of 2006 would not override these provisions. From a bare reading of the instructions, it is evident that the Instruction is related to condonation of delay in respect of refund due. This instruction is issued with an objective to mitigate the hardship to the assessee. Para 7 of the Instruction, is limited to the extent of ascertaining the claim of the assessee. This does not empower the Assessing Officer to make scrutiny of the entire case, which goes against the spirit of the law. In the instant, the Assessing Officer was required to ascertain that the tax has been deducted at source and on the returned income, such refund is available to the assessee or not. It is viewed that the Assessing Officer has misconstrued direction of the Commissioner and assessed the income by making scrutiny assessment. It is also noticed that there is an inordinate delay in disposing the application by the Commissioner. Under these facts, it is held that the impugned assessment order as framed by the Assessing Officer is contrary to the provisions of law and beyond the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the assessment is quashed. The Assessing Officer is directed to allow the refund with interest as per law.  ( AY. 2000-01)