9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Levy of additional tax under section 143(1A). 2. Adjustment by reducing the deduction under section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Detailed Analysis: 1. Levy of Additional Tax under Section 143(1A): The assessee contested the levy of additional tax under section 143(1A) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal noted that section 143(1A) applies when the total income, as a result of adjustments made under the first proviso to clause (a) of sub-section (1), exceeds the total income declared in the return. The additional tax charged is to be adjusted based on orders under sections 154, 250, 254, 260, 262, 263, or 264, but not under section 147. The assessee argued that section 143(1)(a) applies only to returns filed under section 139 or in response to a notice under section 142(1), not to returns filed under section 148. However, the Tribunal rejected this argument, citing that a return filed under section 148 is deemed to be a return required under section 139, as per the provisions of section 148(1). The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT v. S. Teja Singh, emphasizing that legal fictions must be fully realized, including all consequential incidents. The Tribunal also dismissed the contention that section 147 does not provide for adjustments or intimation under section 143(1)(a), clarifying that section 143(1) does involve the determination of income with adjustments. 2. Adjustment by Reducing the Deduction under Section 80HHC: The assessee claimed that separate computations should be made for its manufacturing and trading activities under section 80HHC, arguing that clause (b) of sub-section (3) applies only to the manufacturing division, while clause (a) applies to the trading division. The Tribunal noted that the issue of whether the businesses should be considered separately or together for deduction purposes under section 80HHC is debatable and not prima facie inadmissible. The Tribunal referred to the Bombay High Court's ruling in Tanna Exports v. M.G. Kamat, which held that adjustments under section 143(1)(a) are not permissible for debatable issues. The Tribunal also noted that the issue had been contentious and subject to varying interpretations by different Tribunal Benches, leading to the constitution of a Special Bench in the case of International Research Park Laboratories Ltd. v. ACIT to resolve the matter. Given the debatable nature of the issue, the Tribunal concluded that the adjustment made by the Assessing Officer under section 143(1)(a) was not permissible. Consequently, the additional tax levied under section 143(1A) was also deemed inapplicable. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that no adjustment reducing the assessee's claim for deduction under section 80HHC could be made under the first proviso to section 143(1)(a). Consequently, the additional tax levied under section 143(1A) was deleted. The appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee.
|
