2025 (1) TMI 1569

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e negative amount of Rs. 14,37,45,699/- is not justifiable Besides such adjustments are not permissible under section 143(1) of the I.T Act without discussing the case on merits on the basis of documentary evidences 2.1 The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in its cross objection: 1. That the orders of the Learned Authorities below in so far as it is against the respondent is against the law, facts, circumstances, natural justice, without jurisdiction, bad in law and all other known principles of law. 2. That the Learned CIT- Appeals (NFAC) erred in not appreciating that the intimation passed u/s 143(1) of the Act is in violation of the provisions of section 143(1)(a) of the Act being not as per law and bad in law ought to have quashed / cancelled the intimation. 3. That the Learned CIT- Appeals (NFAC) erred in not appreciating that no opportunity as required under the proviso to section 143(1)(a) of the Act was provided before making adjustments u/s. 143(1) of the Act, thus the adjustments made were not as per law and bad in law ought to have quashed / cancelled the intimation. 4. For the above and other grounds and reason w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bsp;14,37,45,699/- was considered by the appellant while computing total income for the AY 2023-24, the relevant Col. No. 13(e) of Form 3CD for the AY 2023-24. The ld. ADDL./JCIT (A)-2, Chennai is of the opinion that as the appellant has reported the necessary adjustments under Col. No. 13(e) of the audit report disclosing the necessary ICDS adjustments, the adjustment made by the AO (CPC) adding back the negative amount of Rs. 14,37,45,699/- is not justifiable. Besides such adjustments are not permissible under section 143 (1) of the I.T. Act without any valid reasons and accordingly, directed the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) to delete the above addition of Rs. 14,37,45,699/-. 6.1 Further, with regard to the denial of deduction under section 80JJAA of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,12,46,618/-, the ld. ADDL./JCIT (A)-2, Chennai noted from the original income tax return filed for A.Y. 2023-24 on 30.11.2023, that the appellant has opted for the concessional tax regime under section 115BAA of the IT Act, as indicated in the Col No. (e) of the "Filing Status". Furthermore, it is observed that the appellant had previously opted for concessional tax regime based ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e adjustment as mentioned in clauses (i) to (vi) of sec. 143(1)(a). Therefore, the contention of Revenue is not tenable as there is no scope to process the return on merits based on examination of documentary evidences under the provisions of Section 143 (1) of the Act. This can of course be done during the course of the assessment proceedings. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that there is a difference between the intimation specifying the sum determined to be payable or the amount of refund due to the assessee on the basis of return filed by the assessee and the assessment made by the AO assessing the total income of the assessee in which in our opinion, the case should be discussed in details on merits based on examination of documentary evidences. Further, as per the explanation (b) of provisions of sec. 143(1) of the Act, the acknowledgement of the return shall be deemed to be the intimation in a case where no sum is payable by, or refundable to, the assessee under clause (c) and where no adjustment has been made under clause (a) of the Act. Therefore the question of examination of the documentary evidences while processing of return u/s 143(1) of the act does not a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the Act, we are of the opinion that the intimation passed u/s. 143(1) of the Act by the central processing centre by ignoring the mandate law contained in sec. 143(1)(a) that before making such adjustment, the assessee should be put to notice is illegal & bad in law. Since this has not been done, the jurisdiction of the Central processing centre in doing such adjustments sans any notice is vitiated. Consequently, the adjustment done by the central processing centre is not sustainable in law as it violates the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the CO filed by the assessee is allowed on this count. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is allowed Order pronounced in the open court on 15th Jan, 2025. ============= Document 1 उपआयकरआयुक्तकाकार्यालय, सर्कल-4 (१) (१) OFFICE OF THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, Circle-4(1)(1) कमरानंबर230, दूसरीमंजिल, बीà¤....