COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. R.K.NAGPAL

order of the teamed Commissioner of income Tax‘iAppeals) directing the Assessing Gmcer to aiiow j‘deduction @ 40% from incentive bonus as cisimed by the assesses ?" 4) Shri Amit Choudhary, learned cotinsei appearing for the Revenue, wouid contend that the Tribunal was not justitied in holding that the Assessing Officer could not have made prima facie

adjustment by issuing intimation under $ec’tion 143(1)(a) of the Act, and therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in aiiowmg the assessee’s appeaL 5) Shri Shashank Dubey! fearned 3r. Advocate appearing for the assessee, wouid submit that the adjustments made by the Aseessing Officer while issuing intimation under 3ection ‘i-$i3(1)(a) Pradesh High Court has observed as under: “The provisions of Section 143(i)(_a)(i) of the income Tax Act, 1961‘ are not opposed to natural justice and are not uitra vires. The intimation under the provision is issued on the basis of the ‘assessee’s own return. What is permissible to be adjusted are (i) oniy apparent arithmetical errors in the return, accounts or documents accompanying the retirrn, (ii) loss carried forward, deduction, aliowance or relief; which is prime facie admissibie on the basis of information avaiiabie in the return but not ciaimed in the return, and, simiiariy, (iii) those claims which are on the basis of information available in the return, prima facie, inadmissible, are to be disallowed. The assessing authority. is not permitted under the guise of making adiustment to adjudicate upon any debatapie issue, Section 143(1)(a) is not opposed to naiurai justice. The provision is valigL. (emphasis supplied by us} 6) in the instant case, the assessee had filed the return of income for the assessment year 199(3-91 and in that he had claimed deductions of the conveyance ailowance and, incentive

bonus received by him in the previous year reievant to the assessment year. The Assessing Officer whiie issuing intimaiion under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act, has adjudicated upon debatabie issues. The juri iction of the Assessing Cfiicer under Section 143(1){a) of the Act, is explained by various courts. The repetition of the same, in our opinion, is unnecessary. it is suffice to state that the juri iction of the Assessing Citficer under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act, to make an adjustment and issue intimation is iimited not oniy to be obvious but aiso what is deducibie from the return as filed by the assessee, without doubt or debate. in View of the above, the Assessing Officer could not have proceeded to process the return filed by the assessee under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. Therefore, the question of iaw referred by the Tribunal for consideration and decision of this Court requires to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Accordingiy, the question of iaw raised by the appeiiant/Revenue is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenu xkx i >‘L'>// H, _ V.K. Shrivastava W l- Chief Justice e Judge i \.-.. i