9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h clauses (iii) to (vi) by Finance Act, 2016. Since no such intimation was given to the assessee, the impugned adjustment is liable to be deleted. Thus we allow the ground raised by the assessee because no such intimation was given to the assessee prior to make the impugned adjustment. - Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member And Shri Manomohan Das, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Sanjay Modi, AR For the Revenue : Shri Soumendu Sekhar Das, DR ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The captioned appeals filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year 2016-17 is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Aaykar Bhavan, C.R. Building, Mancota Road, Dibrugarh (hereinafter referred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR though supported the order of the lower authorities could not place any evidence to prove that the CPC had given intimation to the assessee prior to making the adjustment to the income declared in the income tax return. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records available on record. We notice that the assessee claimed deduction u/s 80IA of the Act but the same was denied by the CPC in the order passed u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act. We observe that proviso to Section 143(1)(a) of the Act provides that no adjustment can be made u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act unless an intimation is given to the assessee of such adjustment either in writing or in electronic mode. Second proviso to Section 143A of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng appeal before Ld CIT(A). 3. Before Ld CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the audit report for claiming deduction u/s 80IC was filed in time, but the return of income could be filed belatedly, as the assessee did not have adequate funds to pay self assessment tax. The assessee, by placing reliance on certain case laws, contended that the deduction u/s 80IC should be allowed. However, the Ld CIT(A) noticed that the provisions of sec.143(1)(v) specifically states that the deduction u/s 80IC shall be disallowed, if the return of income is furnished beyond the due date prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act. Accordingly the Ld CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal. 4. The Ld A.R submitted that the year un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roviso to sec.143(1). Hence the Ld D.R was asked to find out as to whether any intimation was given to the assessee. The Ld D.R furnished a letter F.No.CPC/UIV/Judicial/2019-20 dated 03-03-2020, wherein it was stated that no intimation was given to the assessee. It was also stated that the year under consideration being AY 2016-17, no such intimation needs to be given. 7. We have noticed that the return of income of the assessee pertaining to AY 2016-17 was processed u/s 143(1) on 25.06.2017, i.e., after the date of insertion of clause (v) to sec. 143(1), i.e, after 1.4.2017. The contention of the revenue is that, if processing of return of income of any assessment year is done after 1.4.2017, then the provisions of clauses (iii) to (vi) in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
