9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2003 (3) TMI 69 - HC - Income TaxA learned single judge of this court having opined that the intimation issued by the assessing authority under section 143(1)(a) of the Act was based on the statement submitted by the appellant-assessee himself, which accompanied the return, held that there was nothing wrong on the part of the assessing authority in issuing the impugned intimation. In the result, the learned single judge dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this writ appeal by the assessee. In the instant case, it cannot be said that non-issuance of notice by the assessing authority before he sent intimation under section 143(1)(a) has resulted in any prejudice to the appellant-assessee. We say this because, the addition made by the assessing authority to the income of the appellant-assessee was exclusively and solely on the basis of the disclosure made by the assessee himself in the return filed and the documents produced by him. The assessee cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate. - In the result and for the foregoing reasons, we do not find any substantive or weighty ground to interfere with the order of the learned single judge.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the assessing authority was justified in adding Rs. 4,34,955 to the income of the appellant-assessee without notice and opportunity to be heard. 2. Interpretation of Section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and its provisos. 3. Application of principles of natural justice in the context of prima facie adjustments under Section 143(1)(a). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Justification of Addition Without Notice: The appellant-assessee contended that the assessing authority should not have added Rs. 4,34,955 to his income without giving notice and an opportunity to be heard. The court noted that the appellant had declared a total income of Rs. 86,810, which was significantly lower than the gross receipts of Rs. 27,55,383 from the Karnataka Housing Board (K.H.B). The assessing authority added the difference of Rs. 4,34,955 to the appellant's income based on the documents submitted by the appellant himself. The court held that the assessing authority was justified in making this addition without issuing a notice, as the discrepancy was evident from the return and accompanying documents. 2. Interpretation of Section 143(1)(a) and Its Provisos: Section 143(1)(a) allows for adjustments to be made in the income declared in the return for any arithmetical errors, prima facie admissible deductions not claimed, or prima facie inadmissible deductions claimed. The court emphasized that the assessing authority is empowered to make such adjustments based on the information available in the return and accompanying documents. The court rejected the appellant's argument that the assessing authority should have issued a notice before making the adjustment, stating that the law does not require such a notice for prima facie adjustments under clause (i) of the proviso to Section 143(1)(a). 3. Application of Principles of Natural Justice: The appellant argued that the principles of natural justice were violated as no notice was issued before the adjustment. The court referred to the objective of Section 143(1)(a) to avoid unnecessary hearings and expedite the assessment process. The court cited previous judgments, including Bidar Sahakari Sakkare Kharkhane Niyamat v. Union of India, which upheld the validity of Section 143(1)(a) and stated that the provision does not violate principles of natural justice. The court concluded that the appellant did not suffer any prejudice due to the non-issuance of notice, as the addition was based solely on the appellant's own disclosures. Conclusion: The court dismissed the writ appeal, upholding the order of the learned single judge. It held that the assessing authority was justified in adding Rs. 4,34,955 to the appellant's income without issuing a notice, as the adjustment was based on the appellant's own return and accompanying documents. The court found no violation of the principles of natural justice and emphasized that the objective of Section 143(1)(a) is to enable swift and efficient adjustments without unnecessary hearings.
|
