COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR vs. SAMIRCHAND SHRIVASTAVA

GRAL ORDER (Passed on 26‘“ February, 200?) f The following oral order of the Court was passed by H.L. Dattu, C.J. The gssesseev is a Development Officer of Life Insurance l i l Ciarporatlon of lnoia (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to ae ‘Corporation‘). While working as development officer in the i 5 Corporation, he had received certain allowances such as incentive bonus and conveyance allowance. The assessee in the return of income filed under Section 139 of the income Tax Aot’Fthhe Act”, for short) had claimed deductions of the same. The Assessing Officer had disallowed the claim of 40% of the deductions from incentive v b nus on the basis of circular of C.B.D.T. bearing No.1?38 dated 1 -34-1981 in so far as conveyance ailowance- is concerned, the l l

Assessing Officer had allowed deductions to the extent of Rs.8,238/-. All this was done by the Assessing authority while issuing intimation under Section 143(1) (a) of the Aet to the 2) The assessee, aggrieved by the aforesaid disallowance made in the intimation so issued by the Assessing Officer under Sectioh L143 (1) (a) of the Act, had tiled an appeal before the First ’ AppellateAuthority. The Appellate Authority had reiected the assessee‘s appeal: Thereafter, the assessee had carried the ma er before the Tribunal, in l.T.A.No. 436/Nag/2001. The Trib nal, being of the View that the claim made by the assessee is debl tablewissue, and therefore, the Assessing Authority could not havje made any prima facie' adjustment and accordingly has allogwed the assessee’s appeal and has.set aside the orders passed by the First Appellate Authority as well as the Assessing cert for thiassessment year 1999-2000 The Revenue, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal l has tiled this appeal under Section 260-A of the Act. The Revenue has raised the following question of law for consideration and decision of this Court: ‘Whether on the facts and in the circumstanees of the case, the learned lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal was Justified in reversing the order of the learned Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals) confirming prima facie adjustment made by the‘Assessing Oft'lcer u/s 143 (1)(a) disallowing the deduction claimed ‘ by the assessee from incentive bonus gal 3) l h/ 5% received from LIC.?" a$5e$see. ‘ Off

4) Shri Amit Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the 1 iRevenue, would contend that the Tribunal was not justmed in holding that the Assessmg Offcer could not have made pnma fame justment by Issulng mtlmatlon under Section 143(1)(a) of the ct and therefore the Tribunal was not justlfed m ailowmg the ssessee’s appeal. Shri Shashank Dubey, learned 3r. Advocate appearing for the assessee, would submit that the adjustments made by the l As‘s‘e'esing Offcer white issuinq intimation under Section 143(1‘)(a) of the Act are debatable Issues and therefore the Assessmg icer could not have processed the return fled by the assessee u der Section 143(1 )(a) of the Act. ln support to his contention, t e learned Senior Counsei has relied upon the decision of the llli‘adhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Kamal Textiies and : ~ tiradesh High Court has observed as under: i ‘The provrsrons of Section 143(1)(a)(i) of the income ‘ Tax Act 1961 are not opposed to natural Justice and ‘ are not ultra vrres The intimation under the proVision is issued on the basrs of the assessees own return What is permissibie to be adjusted are (i) oniy apparent arithmeticai errors in the return, accounts or documents accompanying the return, (ii) loss carried forward, deduction, aliowance or relief, which is prime facie admissible on the basis of information availabie in the return but not ciaimed in the return and simiiariy, (in) those claims which are on the basis of information available in the return prima fame inadmissmle are to be disallowed. The assessing authorig is not permitted under the guise of making adiustment to l adiudicate upon anx debatabie i5§ue. Section 143(1)(a) is not opposed to naturai iustice. The provision is valid {emphasis supplied by us) t? ;

6) In the instant case, the assessee had filed the return of income for the assessment year 1999-2006 and in that he had l claimed deductions of the conveyance allowance and incentive bonus received by him in the previous year relevant to the ssessment year. The Assessing Officer while issuing intimation nder Section 143(1 )(a) of the Act, has adjudicated upon debatabie issues. The juri iction of the Assessing Officer under Section l 43(1)(a) of the Act, is explained by various coum. The repetition l l oif~the same, in our opinion,’ is unnecessary. lt is suffice to state i that the juri iction of the Assessing Officer under Section i 143(1)(a) of the Act, to make an adjustment and issue intimation is . lmited not only to be obvious but also what is deducible from the r turn as filed by the assessee, without doubt or debate. in View of the above, the Assessing Officer could not have proceeded to pfrocess the return fiied by the assessee under Séctign 1 43(1 )(a) of g the Act. Therefore, the question of lavv raised by the \ppeilant/Revenue for consideration and decision of this Court requires tolbe answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Accordingly, the question of law raised by the appellant l ARevenue is answered in favour of the assessee and against the r l Revenue. — f V.K. Shrivastava"; li\\, l x Judé? ‘ r \ l, i V