9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1321X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 25.03.2019 is not reflected on the system and the consequent demand or adjustment already merged into the order of the AO passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. There cannot remain any grievance on account of intimation dated 25.03.3019. Even the ld. AO has submitted a factual report and submitted that the intimation u/s. 143(1) dated 25.03.2019 is not reflected in to the online system and consequent demand there upon also. Thus, once the intimation which the very cause of the grievance of the assessee is not reflected and existed on records the consequent grievance also not existed and thus the appeal of the assessee becomes infructuous. Appeal of the assessee is allowed. - ITA No. 260/JP/2022 - - - Dated:- 26-9-2022 - SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN , JM And SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI , AM Assessee by : Shri O. P. Agarwal , CA Shri Maniesh Agarwal , CA Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Dhariwal , CIT - DR ORDER PER : RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI , A. M. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC/ld. CIT(A)) ] for the assessment year 2017-18 dated 17-06-2022 which in tu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion was removed from the eportal. It is therefore prayed that order passed by Id.CIT(A) is not in accordance with law and deserves to be set aside. 3. The brief facts as culled out from the records is that the assessee is a Senior Advocate practicing in the Supreme Court of India and had filed his Return of Income for the year under appeal u/s 139(1) on 28.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 6,12,66,320/- (APB 1-7). The Return of Income so filed was revised u/s 139(5) on 30.09.2018 i.e. within the statutory time limit provided for revising the return. The return was revised declaring total income at Rs. 6,19,02,760/- (APB 8 14) which amounted to an onward revision of return by Rs. 6,36,440/- [6,19,02,760 6,12,66,320]. The Revised Return filed by the assessee was taken-cognizance of and it was processed by the department and vide intimation u/s 143(1)(a) assessee was informed that adjustment of Rs.4,37,99,929/- was made to the Returned Income of assessee, resulting into an addition of Rs. 4,37,99,929/-. 4. Aggrieved from the said initiation u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act the assessee moved an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s account on account of exempt income. The appellant could not correlate the Capital Gains income which has been reduced from the business with any of the incomes shown by him in the Exempt Income (El) Schedule. The appellant has shown only Rs 2,79,081 in the schedule of Capital Gains and the remaining amount of Rs 98,45,256 has not been shown by the appellant. The addition made by the Assessing Officer do not suffer from any infirmity. Therefore, the Ground of Appeal 3 is hereby dismissed. 5. As the issues involved in the present appeal is related the adjustments made u/s. 143(1)(a) after issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act and all the grounds are inextricably interlinked or in fact interwoven, therefore, all the grounds are considered together and decided as such. 6. During the course of hearing of the appeal the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the entire proceedings leading to the order dated 17.06.2022 were without jurisdiction, since the same were initiated and concluded during pendency of regular assessment proceedings u/s 143(2) (3). Further, the computation order dated 25.03.2019 merged with the final assessment order dated 20.12.2019, where in no additi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the most logical reason that order u/s 143(1) is issued without detailed scrutiny and without confronting the findings in summary order to the assessee, whereas order u/s 143(3) is passed after obtaining all the necessary details / information from the assesse. Reference in this regard may be made to the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vodafone, wherein it was held as follows: 16. The nature of exercise of power under sub-section (1) as against that under sub-sections (2) and (3) is thus completely different. In the former case, the matter is processed, only to check whether any apparent inconsistencies are evident on the face of the return and connected material which may call for any adjustment while in the latter case, the matter is scrutinised after taking into account such evidence as the assessee may produce. The exercise in the latter case is to ensure that there is no understating of income or overstating of loss or underpayment of the tax in any manner. In other words, the veracity of the return is checked threadbare rather than considering mere apparent inconsistencies from the return. Thus, the nature of power under these two pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
