9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (4) TMI 147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not justified in making, the adjustments to the loss returned by the assessee because they were not Prima facie adjustments as contemplated under the provisions of section 143(1)(a). The learned counsel points out that the impugned adjustments involved debatable issues and the Assessing Officer did not have any jurisdiction to make any prima facie adjustment under the provisions of section 143(1)(a.), though he could do so after issue of notice under section 143(2) to the assessee in a regular assessment to be made under section 143(3). The learned counsel further points out that in the present case the Assessing officer did issue notices under section 143(2) on 20-10-1993 and 1-12-1993, whereas the impugned adjustments were made by the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly aggrieved against is the processing of the return under section 143(1B) with respect to the revised return filed on 23-3-1993. The learned DR points out that the Assessing Officer was duty bound to process this return under section 143(1B) and he did so on 30-11-1994 making certain adjustments which were of prima facie and did not involve any debatable issue. Sri Chowdary points out that when the assessee filed under section 139(5), it supplants the original return and all the legal consequences will follow including the mandatory provisions of section 143(1B). The learned DR places reliance in this connection on the following cases : Rakesh Aggarwal v. Asstt CIT [1997] 225 ITR 496 (Delhi); Kamal Textiles v. ITO [1991] 189 ITR 3391 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ginal processing under section 143(1)(a) and therefore, what he could not do with respect to the original return, he was not empowered to do with respect to the revised return. The revised return was occasioned by providing for lesser depreciation and for expenditure of prior period expenses as compared with the original return and these items were not subject mailer of adjustment in the processing done under section 143(1B). In the circumstances, the Assessing Officer's action in raking up issues which were already concluded in the processing under section 143(1)(a) done on 16-3-1993 was unjustified and was beyond his powers. The learned counsel further has taken us to the details of the three adjustments made by the Assessing Officer in s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance Sheet Rs. 78,69,000 (ii) Excess depreciation on Guest house disallowed Rs. 14,359 (iii) Excess claim of guest house expenditure debited to P L A/c disallowed Rs. 29,168 Rs. 79,12,527(+) ------------------------- Net adjusted loss Rs. 1,09,77,588(-) ------------------------- Charge additional tax etc.," We have perused the copy of the balance sheet, the profit and loss account and the audit report Form in 3CD filed by the assessee along with the revised return. It is found that the interest payable on term loan is shown at Rs. 78,69,000 on the liability side of the balance sheet. On the same side the details of the term loan taken from the various financial institutions such as IDBI, ICICI, IFCI, etc., are also shown. Unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions to the extent of Rs. 51.72 lakhs. We are entirely in agreement with this conclusion reached by the CIT(A) as it is based on a proper reading of the P L A/c, Balance Sheet and other documents accompanying the revised return. 8. With regard to the case laws relied on the learned counsel for the assessee, we have to observe that since the three items of adjustment in the present case did not involve any debatable issue or points on which further enquiry or clarification was needed, the ratio of these decisions does not apply to the facts of the present case. 9. As regards the argument that once a notice under section 143(2) is issued the Assessing Officer cannot do any adjustment under section 143(1)(a), we find that the case laws cit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case. 10. With regard to the levy of additional tax also, the argument of the learned counsel cannot be accepted as valid in view of the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in Bidar Sahakari Sakkare Kharkhane Niyamat's case. 11. It is also pertinent to note in this connection that section 143(1B) has been omitted by the Finance Act, 1999 with effect from 1-6-1999 and the learned counsel for the assessee took pains in explaining the provisions of the Act as in force at present. However, for the assessment year under consideration i.e., 1992-93, the relevant provisions of section 143(1B)were very much in force and the revised return having been filed on 23-3-1993 and the processing of return under section 143(1B) having been made on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
