9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against CIT(A) order for assessment year 1997-98; Dismissal of petition under section 154; Rectification of intimation under section 143(1); Application under section 154 dated 10-4-1999; Notice under section 143(2); Revised return filed under section 139(5); Assessment order under section 144; Request for rectification made after notice under section 143(2); Applicability of section 143(1B); Case laws cited; Rejection of application under section 154; Interpretation of relevant legal provisions. Detailed Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed against the order of CIT(A) for the assessment year 1997-98. The appellant contended that the petition under section 154 was wrongly dismissed by the CIT(A), citing a mistake apparent from the record in the intimation under section 143(1) and the subsequent revised return filed under section 139(5) on a later date. 2. The appellant initially filed the return of income within the prescribed time, which was processed under section 143(1)(a) resulting in a demand due to missing TDS certificates and self-assessment tax details. Subsequently, a notice under section 143(2) was issued, and a revised return was filed after the notice, leading to a request for rectification under section 154 to align with section 143(1B) provisions. 3. The Assessing Officer rejected the application under section 154, stating no apparent mistake in the intimation under section 143(1). The CIT(A) concurred, emphasizing that rectification post-notice under section 143(2) was impermissible, citing legal precedents like Lakhanpal National Ltd. and Bombay Snuff Co. 4. The appellant's representative argued for the rectification based on the mandatory provisions of section 143(1B) and referenced the case of Janatha Tile Works Ltd. to support the contention that rectification could be validly considered even after assessment. 5. The ITAT considered the arguments, reviewed the relevant legal provisions, and upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal. The tribunal highlighted that the revised return and rectification application were filed after the notice under section 143(2), making rectification of the intimation under section 143(1) impermissible based on established case laws and legislative intent. 6. The tribunal referenced various case laws, including Gujarat Electricity Board, Gujarat Poly-AVX Electronics Ltd., Lakhanpal National Ltd., and Punjab National Bank, to reinforce the principle that rectification post-notice under section 143(2) was not permissible under the Income-tax Act. 7. The tribunal reiterated the significance of section 143(1B) in allowing amendments to intimation based on revised returns but emphasized that such amendments must align with the procedural requirements and timing specified in the Act, precluding rectification post-notice under section 143(2). 8. Ultimately, the tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appeal, affirming the decision of the CIT(A) and emphasizing the procedural adherence to statutory provisions and legal precedents in matters of rectification post-assessment notices. This detailed analysis of the legal judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the issues involved, the arguments presented, the legal provisions considered, and the final decision rendered by the ITAT Delhi-D.
|
