9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves a challenge to an order passed u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act regarding adjustments made by the Income-tax Officer resulting in the computation of taxable income. Adjustments Made by Income-tax Officer: The petitioner disclosed a loss in the return for the assessment year 1989-90. The Income-tax Officer made additions in various categories, including corpus donation, retainership fee, medicine expenses, rent, and maintenance expenses, due to lack of proof provided by the petitioner. Contentions and Rectification: The petitioner contended that the additions made by the Income-tax Officer were not justified under section 143(1). Subsequently, an order u/s 154 was passed rectifying the adjustments and setting the income at "nil." The petitioner argued that the writ petition was still relevant as the issue persisted. Interpretation of Section 143(1)(a) Proviso: The court analyzed section 143(1)(a) and its proviso, specifically focusing on clause (iii) which allows adjustments if a claim is prima facie inadmissible based on the return. It was emphasized that lack of proof alone cannot warrant disallowance or adjustment by the Income-tax Officer. Legal Analysis and Circular No. 549: The judgment highlighted that adjustments can only be made if a claim is evidently inadmissible based on the return itself, not due to lack of proof. Reference was made to Circular No. 549, providing examples of permissible adjustments based on information available in the return or accompanying documents. Conclusion and Decision: The court concluded that the adjustments made by the Income-tax Officer solely due to lack of proof were not valid under the provisions of section 143(1). The writ petition was allowed, quashing the intimation dated October 29, 1990, with no order as to costs.
|
