ITAT held that legal question whether an intimation under...

ITAT held that legal question whether an intimation under section 143(1)(a) complied with the first proviso is admissible even if raised first before the Tribunal; revenue objections were rejected. The Tribunal found determination of a current-year long-term capital loss via such intimation goes beyond permissible adjustments under section 143(1)(a) and remitted the matter to CIT(A) for factual verification. CIT(A) must examine the assessment record to ascertain whether the intimation was issued in compliance with the first proviso and, in the absence of requisite ITR and supporting documents, determine whether the loss qualifies for carry-forward. If records establish non-compliance or entitlement to carry-forward, CIT(A) shall decide afresh and grant appropriate relief.