2016 (2) TMI 708

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 43(2) of the Act and the intimation under section 143 (1)(a) of the Act on the same date. Thus, notice under section 143(2) of the Act could not be termed as invalid. As the adjustments made by the Assessing Officer could not be said to be prima facie adjustments, therefore, the additions made in the intimation issued under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act were not sustainable. The view taken by the Tribunal is in accordance with law which has not been shown to be illegal or perverse in any manner. Thus, the question of law referred is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee
Ajay Kumar Mittal And Raj Rahul Garg, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Tejinder K.Joshi, Adv For the Respondent : Mr. S.K.Mukhi, Adv JUDGMENT Ajay Kuma .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Taxable income before set off of unabsorbed depreciation ₹ 1,16,48,777/- Add: On account of interest to IFCI in the absence of proof under section 43B ₹ 22,04,344/- On account of sales tax and penalty recoverable under section 43B ₹ 13,88,741/- Less: Unabsorbed depreciation claimed in the return adjusted ₹ 1,43,96,287/- The above adjustments were made in the intimation dated 4.11.1996. The assessee filed appeal against this intimation before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]which was dismissed vide order dated 17.9.1997. On further appeal before the Tribunal by the assessee, it was held that such adjustments were beyond the scope of Section 143(1)(a) of he Act. Accordingly, the adjustments m .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... stration to speed up the work of assessment in making summary adjustments assessing Officer is within his power, inter alia to disallow any deduction, allowing or relief claimed in the return but which on the basis of the information available in such return could be said to be prima facie inadmissible. A debatable issue does not fall within the ken of prima facie adjustments. Such adjustments could be made only on the basis of the details available on record. It was not the intention of the Act to permit roving enquiries before making such adjustments. For making such disallowances, it was open for the Assessing Officer to follow the procedure laid down in the Act by the issuance of notice under section 143(2). 11. In the present case, w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X