TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 1227
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t"), dated.23.12.2021 for AY 2020-21. 2. Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are reproduced as under: "1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, adjustments made in intimation u/s 143(1) are beyond the scope of said section. 2. (a) That on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is unjustified in confirming the action of Ld. AO / CPC in respect of the addition / disallowance of Rs. 2,18,98,590/ - made by the Intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the total income declared by the appellant without providing any reason for such addition/disallowance. (b) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order has been passed in violation of first proviso to section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... income was filed on 05.02.2021 reporting a total income of Rs. 54,66,47,320/- under the normal provisions of the Act and at Rs. 78,84,02,426/- under the Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) provisions of the Act, claiming refund of Rs. 91,25,741/-. Return of the assessee was processed by Central Processing Centre (CPC), Income tax Department, Bengaluru and an intimation was issued u/s. 143(1) of the Act dated 23.12.2021 raising a demand of Rs. 2,31,06,120/-. An amount of Rs. 2,28,98,589/- has been added to the total income of the assessee on account of disallowance of expenses/additions to income. 3.1. On a specific query by the Bench to the Ld. Counsel on the details of these additions, page 37 of the Intimation u/s. 143(1) was referred to which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s been adjusted and to offer any explanation to counter such addition/disallowance made while processing the return. According to assessee, it is a regular dividend paying company and such an act on the part of the department, according to the assessee, is a surreptitious, leading to a fictitious demand. 3.3. Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions made by the assessee referred to the Memorandum to Finance Bill, 2008 as well as Memorandum to Finance Bill, 2016 and observed that adjustment has been made on the basis of mismatch between the income tax return and tax audit report filed by the assessee. He thus, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The moot point raised before us ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (ii) An incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return; (iii) disallowance of loss claimed, if return of the previous year for which set off of loss is claimed was furnished beyond the due date specified un- der sub-section (1) of section 139; (iv) disallowance of expenditure [or increase in income] indicated the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return; (v) disallowance of deduction claimed under [section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.-Deductions in respect of certain incomes", if] the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; or (vi) addition of income app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nloaded from the income tax portal account of the assessee for the year under consideration as extracted above. Ld. Counsel demonstrated from this e-proceeding download that there is no evidence of issue of intimation/notice as required in 1st proviso to sec. 143(1)(a) of the Act. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record and have gone through various references made by both the parties in the course of their arguments. We do find force in the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee in respect of any adjustment which is proposed to be made, a prior intimation is required to be served on the assessee, either in writing or electronically, as contained in 1st proviso to section 143(1)(a) ....