9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 729 - AT - Income TaxAdjustment of the income in processing of return u/s 143(1) - addition of total turnover of business by a back calculation with the total income of the assessee - addition made on basis of the reflection in 26AS plea of the counsel of the assessee is that only the net profit - @ 8% will be added as per the provision of section 44AD of the Act - HELD THAT - The jurisdiction of the assessing authority for processing of return u/s 143(1) is only restricted for certain conditions which is designated in the CBDT Instruction no. 1814 dated 04.04.1989. The Act is very clear in this issue, there is no such any ambiguity in the Act related to processing u/s 143(1). The income which was reflected in the 26AS is a gross turnover. So, the addition made on basis of the reflection in 26AS without allowing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. But the ld. AO suo motu added back the amount which is violation of the natural justice. After respectfully considered the catena of judgment as mentioned above, the addition amount is arbitrary and bad in law. The ld. AO had acted beyond the jurisdiction related to this addition. Here, the order passed u/s 143(1) is bad in law. So the addition made by the ld. AO amount is liable to be quashed.
Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeal. 2. Disallowance of addition made by the assessing officer. 3. Jurisdiction of the assessing authority for processing return u/s 143(1). 4. Legal issue related to adjustment of income. 5. Factual issue for addition of total turnover of business. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal: The assessee filed an application for condonation of a 35-day delay, citing an extension of the period of limitation by the Supreme Court. The delay was condoned, allowing the appeal to proceed. Disallowance of Addition Made by the Assessing Officer: The assessing officer had added Rs. 8,86,320 to the total income of the assessee based on the reflection in Form 26AS, which the assessee contested. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, leading to the appeal. The key contention was whether the entire gross receipts of cleaning solar modules should be charged as income or only the profits embedded in them. The Tribunal held that the assessing officer had acted beyond jurisdiction in making the addition without allowing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The addition was deemed arbitrary and bad in law, resulting in its quashing. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority for Processing Return u/s 143(1): The jurisdiction of the assessing authority for processing returns under section 143(1) was a crucial issue. The Tribunal observed that the assessing officer's addition based on the 26AS data without proper opportunity to the assessee was a violation of natural justice. Citing relevant judgments and CBDT instructions, the Tribunal concluded that the assessing officer had exceeded jurisdiction in making the addition, rendering the order under section 143(1) invalid. Legal Issue Related to Adjustment of Income: The legal issue revolved around whether adjustments made by the assessing authority in the intimation under section 143(1) were justified. The Tribunal considered arguments related to the application of section 44AD of the Income Tax Act and the burden of proof on the assessee. Various judgments were cited to support the contention that the assessing authority's actions were beyond the scope of section 143(1). Factual Issue for Addition of Total Turnover of Business: The factual issue pertained to the addition of the total turnover of the business by back calculation with the total income of the assessee. The counsel for the assessee argued that only the net profit at 8% should be added as per section 44AD. The Tribunal concluded that the factual issue need not be adjudicated as the entire order under section 143(1) was deemed erroneous and invalid. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, quashing the addition made by the assessing officer and highlighting the jurisdictional limitations of processing returns under section 143(1). The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural fairness and legal boundaries in income tax assessments.
|
