9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is different from the disallowance made in the assessment order passed under section 143(3).Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Intimation passed u/s 143(1)(a) deserves to be considered on the first principles of law - Under the new sub-section (1D) the legislature provides that, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the processing of return would not be necessary where a notice has been issued to an assessee under sub section (2). Meaning thereby, once notice under section 143(2) has been issued, the assessing officer shall not process the return under section 143(1). The original proviso to sub-section (1D) also stands substituted by the new proviso, under which, it is clarified that the new proviso under the new sub-section (1D) shall not apply to any return furnished for the assessment year commencing on or after 01.04.2017. As relevant to note that, upto 01/06/2001, section 241 of the Act enabled the Ld.AO to withhold any refund under certain circumstances. Section 241, was subsequently withdrawn w.e.f. 01/06/2001. Now on comparing the newly inserted provision under (1D) of section 143 with newly inserted section 241A, it would be further clear that, the legi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elow failed to appreciate that the intimation passed u/s 143(1) of the Act is in total violation of the provisions of the said section and is not as per law requires to be cancelled. 8. The Learned authorities below erred in considering total income at Rs. 48,53,50,572/- ( which is as per the asst. order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act) as against Rs. 47,51,37,520/- as per the revised return. 9. The Learned authorities below erred in determining the net tax liability at Rs. 9,33,79,161/- ( which is as per the asst. order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act) as against Rs. 9,01,28,851/- as per revised return. 10. The Learned authorities below erred in restricting the deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act to Rs. 2,71,12,299/- as against the claim of Rs. 3,73,25,354/-. 11. The Learned authorities below erred in restricting the relief u/s 90 of the Act to Rs. 2,87,73,871/- ( which is as per the original return) as against the claim of Rs. 2,94,53,756/- as per the revised return. 12. The Learned authorities below have considered TDS credit only to the extent of Rs. 11,32,65,988/- as against the claim of Rs. 11,32,89,994/-. 13. The Learned authorities below erred in not correctly quantifying the period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the revised return of income was processed under section 143(1) on 29.3.2022 after determining the total income at Rs. 48,53,50,570/-. The appellant argued that the revised return of Rs. 47,51,37.520/- was not taken into account while processing the return of income on 29.3.2022. 4.2.1 Upon perusal of the records available in the system, it is observed that on the day of 29.3.2022, a scrutiny assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) [National Faceless Assessment Unit) under section 143(3) of the IT Act on 26.9.2022 after assessing the total income at Rs. 48,53,50,575/-, While passing the scrutiny assessment, the AO of the Faceless Assessment Unit examined the reasons for the difference between the original return of income and revised return of income. The difference in income worked out to Rs. 59,75,029/1481112550-475137520]. The said difference comprised (a) Health and Education cess @ 4% Rs. 42.38,025/- and (b) Revised Computation of depreciation Rs. 17,37,004/-which were claimed by the appellant while filing their revised return of income. After affording the opportunity to the appellant, the AO (Faceless Unit) disallowed the claim of Health and Education ces ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ditions. It is submitted that, no intimation was issued to the assessee, as it is apparently clear that, the intimation u/s. 143(1)(a) and the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) is dated 26/09/2022. 3.3. He further submitted that, even otherwise an intimation cannot be passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the law which is 9 months from the end of the Financial Year in which the return is being filed by an assessee and the intimation so issued u/s. 143(1) on 26/09/2022 is beyond the period of limitation. 3.4. On the contrary, the Ld.DR opposed the argument of the assessee regarding the principle of merger of the intimation and the assessment order in the present facts of the case. He submitted that, there is no embargo under the act to pass an intimation u/s. 143(1)(a) and also an assessment order by the Ld.AO u/s. 143(3) of the act. He further emphasized that, the additions made in the intimation u/s. 143(1)(a) is different from the addition been made in the assessment order u/s. 143(3). 3.5. The Ld.DR submitted that the period of limitation therefore cannot be a reason to appreciate the argument of the assessee now. He submitted that the intimation u/s. 143(1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nos. 4-7 the argument of Ld.AR that the intimation passed under section 143(1)(a) deserves to be considered on the first principles of law. We note that, there was an amendment made to section 143(1)(a) by Finance Act, 2017, by inserting new sub section 1D to section 143, as against the old, and also new section 241A was inserted. In order to verify the legality of the intimation passed under section 143(1)(a), in the present facts of the case, it is necessary to analyse these provisions which are as under: By Finance Act 2017 w.e.f. 01.04.2017 new sub-section (1D) to section 143, replaced the original and now reads as under: Newly inserted sub clause (1D) by FA 2017: {(1D) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the processing of a return shall not be necessary, where a notice has been issued to the assessee under subsection (2): Provided that the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply to any return furnished for the assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 2017.] Sub clause (1D) as it stood prior to FA 2017: [(1D) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the processing of a return shall not be necessary, where a notice has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opinion, having regard to the fact that a notice has been issued under sub-section (2) of section 143 in respect of such return, that the grant of the refund is likely to adversely affect the revenue, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing and with the previous approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be, withhold the refund up to the date on which the assessment is made. 4.5.1. Now on comparing the newly inserted provision under (1D) of section 143 with newly inserted section 241A, it would be further clear that, the legislature provided that, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section(1), the processing of the return would not be necessary where a notice has been issued to assessee under sub-section(2). This would in effect mean that, once the notice u/s. 143(2) is issued, the assessing officer shall not process the return u/s. 143(1). 4.6. We therefore do not find any reason to uphold the intimation passed u/s. 143(1)(a) dated 29/06/2021 do not have any legs to stand in the eyes of law. In any event, the assessee is in appeal against the assessment order before the Ld.CIT(A) as has been informed by the Ld.AR. We thus hold the intimat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
