DURA ROOF (P) LIMITED,GUWAHATI vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1CPC, GUWAHATI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 49/GTY/2022Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati14 June 2023AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal against the section 143(1) intimation became infructuous as it merged into the subsequent assessment orders. Since the assessment order under section 153A was pending before the CIT(A), the appeal against the 143(1) intimation was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an intimation under section 143(1) for AY 2018-19, which disallowed a deduction under section 80IC. The intimation was later merged into a scrutiny assessment order under section 143(3).

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal against a section 143(1) intimation is maintainable when it merges into subsequent assessment orders, and the status of such subsequent orders.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 143(3),Section 153A,Section 80IC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, GAUHATI BENCH

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

For Appellant: Shri Kishor Jain, FCA
For Respondent: Shri N. T. Sherpa, JCIT
Hearing: 07.06.2023Pronounced: 14.06.2023

O R D E R

PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order passed by Ld. CIT(A), Central, North-East Region, Gwahati vide Appeal No. Nil dated 31.08.2022 against the Intimation passed by ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru u/s. 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) dated 12.01.2020 for AY 2018-19.

2.

There is a delay of 46 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal for which petition for condonation of delay is placed on record. Impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) is dated 31.08.2022. In the petition for condonation of delay, assessee has stated that the year under consideration was subject to multiple proceedings which included

Dura Roof Pvt. Ltd. AY: 2018-19 processing of return u/s. 143(1), thereafter, scrutiny assessment u/s. 14393) and then yet another assessment u/s. 153A were made pursuant to search. Multiplicity of the event led to this delay of 46 days in filing the present appeal. The present appeal before us is against the intimation issued u/s. 143(1) of the Act after processing of return by the Centralised Processing Centre (CPC), Bengaluru, dated 12.01.2020 wherein an adjustment has been made of Rs.1,53,31,924/- by disallowing deduction claimed u/s. 80IC of the Act, for not furnishing audit report in Form 10CCB within the prescribed time limit.

4.

From the perusal of the petition for condonation of delay, the facts narrated therein reveals that year under consideration i.e. AY 2018-19 was subjected to scrutiny assessment u/s. 143(3) for which an order was passed on 09.09.2021, making the same adjustment relating to deduction u/s. 80IC, as it was done in the intimation issued u/s. 143(1) of the Act. It is also revealed from the said condonation petition that another assessment has been done u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) vide order dated 30.03.2022 for the same assessment year. On specific question by the Bench on the status of appeal against the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) and also u/s. 153A of the Act to the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, it was submitted that first appeal against the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) was disposed off by quashing the said assessment order, it being an abated year owing to search. In the first appeal against the order u/s. 153A, ld. Counsel submitted that matter is pending before the Ld. CIT(A).

5.

We note that once an assessment order has been passed u/s. 143(3), the intimation u/s. 143(1) merges in the said assessment order and looses its standalone existence. In the present case before us, appeal is against the intimation u/s. 143(1) which merges into the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. The said assessment

Dura Roof Pvt. Ltd. AY: 2018-19 order has been quashed in the first appeal, consequent to conduct of search, by holding it an abated year, as submitted by the Ld. Counsel which revives the intimation u/s. 143(1). However, yet another assessment is completed u/s. 153A for the same year for which the first appeal is pending before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the impugned intimation u/s. 143(1) again merges into the assessment order passed u/s. 153A since it is an abated year.

5.1. Chronology of events in this respect is important which is noted as under:

(a) Intimation u/s. 143(1) -12.01.2020 (b) Assessment order u/s. 143(3) -19.04.2021 (Intimation merges) (c) Assessment order u/s. 153A - 30.03.2022 read with sec. 143(3) (d) CIT(A)’s order against 143(1) - 31.08.2022(impugned order) Intimation (e) CIT(A) order against 143(3) order - disposed by quashing 143(3) Order, being abated year (f) CIT(A) order against 153A assessment - Pending

6.

Considering these facts, we find that the present appeal being against intimation u/s. 143(1) is rendered as infructuous owing to its merger into the assessment order passed u/s. 153A, it being abated year and pending before Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we dismiss the present appeal as infructuous after condoning the delay.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous.

More judgments on Section 153A

All 18,957 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →