9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to intimation/order by Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax under section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act for assessment year 1993-94. Validity of adjustments made by Assessing Officer under section 143(1)(a) including reduction in deduction claimed under section 80HHC of the Act. Power of Assessing Officer to disallow claims without proof or evidence. Availability of alternative remedy for challenging adjustments under section 143(1)(a) of the Act. Analysis: The petition sought the quashing of an intimation/order by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax under section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1993-94, imposing income-tax and additional income-tax on the petitioner-company. The Assessing Officer made adjustments under the first proviso to section 143(1)(a), raising the taxable income and reducing the deduction claimed under section 80HHC of the Act. The petitioner challenged these adjustments as impermissible in law, arguing that no substantial adjustments requiring investigation should be made without hearing the assessee. The petitioner contended that the Assessing Officer could not disallow a claim without proof or evidence, citing relevant case laws to support the plea. The Assessing Officer's reduction of the deduction under section 80HHC was based on the exclusion of certain income from investments and portfolio income from business profits. The petitioner argued that the Assessing Officer exceeded his jurisdiction by re-calculating the deduction under section 80HHC, referencing decisions from various High Courts to support the contention that such re-calculation was impermissible. The respondents, however, asserted that the Assessing Officer had the power to make adjustments specified in the proviso to section 143(1)(a) without providing a hearing to the assessee. The respondents highlighted that the Assessing Officer's powers under section 143(1)(a) were limited to adjustments deducible from the return as filed, without requiring further investigation. They argued that the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to make adjustments was supported by relevant legal precedents and circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Additionally, the respondents emphasized the availability of an alternative remedy for the assessee to challenge the adjustments, such as moving a rectification application under section 154 of the Act. The court accepted the respondents' argument regarding the availability of an alternative remedy for the assessee to address the nature of deductions and profits in question by filing a rectification application. The court noted that in the preceding assessment year, a similar remedy was successful for the assessee. Therefore, the court dismissed the writ petition, advising the assessee to pursue the alternative remedy available under the Act. The court refrained from delving into a detailed discussion on the merits of the applicability of section 143(1)(a) and the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, given the availability of the alternative remedy for the assessee. In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the availability of an alternative remedy for the assessee to address the disputed adjustments under section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act.
|
