2025 (8) TMI 1417 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal dismissed for failure to challenge s.143(1) intimation on revised return filed 16.9.2020; appeal held not maintainable

Shree Balaji Test House Private Limited Versus Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru Income Tax Department Bengaluru

Shree Balaji Test House Private Limited Versus Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru Income Tax Department Bengaluru - TMI ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether an appeal filed against an intimation under section 143(1) of the Act dated 16.06.2020 is maintainable where the assessee subsequently filed revised returns and the later revised return (filed 16.09.2020) was processed under section 143(1) on 08.11.2020. 2. Whether the first appellate authority was obliged to adjudicate the merits of submissions and documentary evidence lodged against an earlier intimation when a later intimation arising from a revised return was available and not appealed. 3. Whether dismissal of an appeal as not maintainable for being directed against an earlier intimation (rather than the intimation corresponding to the latest processed return) can be sustained where the appellant failed to appear before the Tribunal and the appeal is decided ex parte. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Maintainability of appeal against earlier intimation when later revised-return intimation was processed Legal framework: Section 143(1) intimation constitutes the intimation of processing of a specific return filed; appeals must be directed against the operative intimation that reflects the return which was finally processed. Precedent Treatment: No specific precedent or case law was cited or relied upon by the authorities in the impugned orders; the Tribunal decided the question on principles of which intimation is operative. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the original return had been processed by intimation dated 16.06.2020, but the assessee subsequently filed two revised returns, the last on 16.09.2020, which was processed by intimation dated 08.11.2020. The Tribunal held that the operative intimation for assessing the correctness of tax consequences is the intimation corresponding to the latest processed return (08.11.2020). An appeal directed against the earlier intimation (16.06.2020) therefore did not challenge the operative assessment position created by the later processed revised return and was not maintainable. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - An appeal must be instituted against the intimation that corresponds to the return that has been processed and is operative; where a revised return is later processed, an appeal against an earlier intimation is not maintainable. Obiter - No wider observations were made about appeals against intimations generally beyond applying this principle to the facts. Conclusion: The Tribunal confirmed that the appeal against the intimation dated 16.06.2020 was not maintainable in view of the subsequent revised-return intimation dated 08.11.2020; confirmation of dismissal on maintainability grounds was justified. Issue 2 - Duty of the first appellate authority to consider merits and evidence when appeal is filed against an earlier intimation Legal framework: Appellate authorities must decide appeals within their jurisdictional and procedural competence; however, maintainability is a threshold issue that can bar consideration of merits. Precedent Treatment: No case law was placed before the Tribunal by the parties or relied on by the first appellate authority to require merit adjudication despite maintainability objections. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal accepted the reasoning that because the appeal was directed at an earlier intimation that was superseded by a later processed revised-return intimation, the first appellate authority correctly dismissed the appeal as not maintainable without proceeding to examine the merits of the submissions and documents relating to the earlier intimation. The Tribunal treated maintainability as dispositive, obviating the need for merit adjudication on the superseded intimation. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where an appeal is directed against an intimation that is not the operative intimation (because a later revised return was processed), the appellate authority may dismiss on maintainability grounds without adjudicating merits. Obiter - The requirement to examine documentary submissions is conditioned by the threshold question of maintainability. Conclusion: The first appellate authority did not err in declining to decide the merits of submissions lodged against the earlier intimation once it correctly concluded that the appeal was not maintainable. Issue 3 - Effect of non-appearance and ex parte adjudication on the sustainment of dismissal for non-maintainability Legal framework: Where a party fails to appear before the Tribunal after proper notice, the Tribunal may proceed ex parte and decide issues on the record and submissions of the other side; maintainability rulings remain subject to examination on the record. Precedent Treatment: No precedent was cited; the Tribunal applied routine procedural principles regarding ex parte disposal where the appellant did not appear despite repeated notices. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that despite repeated notices the appellant did not appear and therefore the appeal was being decided ex parte. The Tribunal reviewed the record and the reasoning of the first appellate authority and found no infirmity in concluding non-maintainability. The absence of the appellant did not preclude the Tribunal from affirming dismissal where the juridical basis for dismissal (i.e., supersession by a later processed return) was evident on the record. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Non-appearance permits ex parte adjudication; if the record discloses a firm basis for dismissal (such as non-maintainability due to a later processed revised-return intimation), the Tribunal may confirm dismissal even in the appellant's absence. Obiter - Procedural fairness observations are limited by the appellant's failure to appear. Conclusion: The Tribunal validly decided the appeal ex parte and sustained dismissal for non-maintainability; non-appearance did not invalidate the dismissal where the maintainability defect was demonstrable on the record. Cross-reference The conclusions on Issues 1-3 are interrelated: the maintainability finding (Issue 1) was the dispositive legal determination that justified the first appellate authority not considering merits (Issue 2), and the Tribunal properly affirmed that finding in an ex parte hearing where the appellant had repeatedly failed to appear (Issue 3).