2000 (4) TMI 25 - HC - Income Tax

Tribunal decision upheld as Assessing Officer exceeded jurisdiction by changing assessee's status.

Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus KV. Mankaram And Co.

The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling that the Assessing Officer exceeded jurisdiction under section 143(1)(a) by changing the assessee's ... Assessment, Intimation Issues Involved:1. Whether the Tribunal was right in interfering with the order of the Assessing Officer u/s 143(1)(a) determining the status of an association of persons u/s 185 due to non-furnishing of a certified copy of the partnership deed.2. Whether the Assessing Officer exceeded jurisdiction u/s 143(1)(a) by changing the status of the assessee to an association of persons.3. Whether an order u/s 143(1)(a) constitutes an assessment and if the status change can be made in such an order.Summary:Issue 1: Tribunal's Interference with Assessing Officer's OrderThe Revenue questioned whether the Tribunal was correct in interfering with the Assessing Officer's order u/s 143(1)(a) which determined the status of the assessee as an association of persons (AOP) u/s 185 due to the failure of the assessee to furnish a certified copy of the partnership deed along with the return of income. The Tribunal observed that the adjustment envisaged u/s 143(1)(a) did not encompass a change of status.Issue 2: Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer u/s 143(1)(a)The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer exceeded his jurisdiction u/s 143(1)(a) by changing the status of the assessee to an AOP, which could only be done u/s 185 at the time of assessment. The Tribunal concluded that such a change in status could not be made while processing the return of income u/s 143(1)(a).Issue 3: Nature of Order u/s 143(1)(a)The Tribunal and the court noted that an order u/s 143(1)(a) is not an assessment order but an intimation. The court explained that the intimation given u/s 143(1)(a) cannot be treated as an order of assessment and is only deemed as an order for limited purposes under sections 154, 246, and 264 of the Act. The court emphasized that the intimation u/s 143(1)(a) is conceptually different from an order of assessment and does not result in an assessment order.Conclusion:The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the change of status by the Assessing Officer was impermissible under section 143(1)(a) of the Act. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed as without merit.