9911796707
|
Home
Issues: The petition involves challenging the intimation issued under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the constitutional validity of sections 143(1)(a) and 143(1A) of the Act.
Challenging Intimation under Section 143(1)(a): The petitioner, a partnership firm, sought to quash the intimation issued by the first respondent under section 143(1)(a) of the Act, claiming it to be erroneous in disallowing claimed allowances. The petitioner argued that the lack of opportunity before issuing such intimation is unconstitutional as it affects the rights of the assessee. The counsel highlighted a previous Tribunal decision that contradicted the respondent's view, indicating a debatable issue. The High Court held the intimation and orders impugned were erroneous in law, quashing the intimation and directing the authorities to issue notice under section 143(2) for further proceedings. Constitutional Validity of Sections 143(1)(a) and 143(1A): The petitioner also challenged the constitutional validity of sections 143(1)(a) and 143(1A) of the Act, arguing that the provisions should provide an opportunity to the assessee before passing orders or issuing intimations. However, the High Court did not delve into this aspect as it found the impugned orders erroneous on other grounds, rendering the constitutional validity argument unnecessary. Correction of Typing Error: An additional application sought correction of a typing error in the order, where "assessee" was incorrectly typed instead of "assessing authority." The court granted the correction, substituting the correct term in the order. This judgment by the Karnataka High Court addressed the challenges raised by a partnership firm regarding an intimation issued under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court found the intimation and subsequent orders to be erroneous in law, quashing the intimation and directing further proceedings under section 143(2) of the Act. The court did not address the constitutional validity of the relevant sections as it deemed the impugned orders flawed on other grounds. Additionally, a typing error in the order was corrected upon application.
|
