C.I.T., BATHINDA vs. KHALSA DEWAN

The present appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order dated 18.5.2007 (Annexure A-4) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Amritsar Bench, Amritsar in ITA No.2(ASR)/2000 for the assessment year 1995-96 raising the following substantial questions of law:- “(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was right in law in allowing the appeal of the assessee and setting aside the order of ld.CIT(A) and quashing the intimation sent by the A.O. U/s 143(1)(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961 ? (ii)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld.ITAT is right in law in taking a view that the changing of status of firm from Trust to an Association of Persons (AOP) falls outside the purview of see 143 (1)(a) of the Income Tax Act 1961?”

The brief facts out of which the present appeal has arisen are as under:- The asseessee filed Income Tax return in this case on 27.3.1997 showing his income as Nil. While processing the return under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act (for short the 'Act'), the Assessing Officer found that the claim of the assessee for exemption under Section 12-A of the Act was not allowable in the absence of registration certificate. A notice dated 12.3.1998 (Annexure A-1) was issued to the assessee requiring him to explain why the status of the said trust may not be treated as AOP in the absence of the registration certificate. On the required date neither any reply was received nor anybody attended the proceedings before the AO on behalf of the assessee. Hence, the AO proceeded with the computation of total income under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act and treated the status of the trust as AOP and all the income for the assessment year was treated as AOP and was taxed accordingly. The Assessing Officer changed the status of the assessee from trust (08) claimed in the return to an AOP (07) while processing the return under Section 143(1)(a). Aggrieved with this action of the Assessing Officer, the assessee went in appeal before the CIT (A), who vide his order dated 3.8.1999 in appeal No.221-IT/CIT(A)/BTI/97-98 dismissed the appeal of the assessee observing as under:- “I have given due consideration to the rival submissions and I hold that there is no force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel of the appellant. The appellant has claimed the status while filing the return as charitable trust i.e. 08 but the same was not substantiated by enclosing the registration certificate from the competent authority as required under the statute.

Against the above order of the CIT(A), Bathinda, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar who vide its order dated 18.5.2007 (Annexure P-4) in ITA No.2(ASR)/2000 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the CIT(A) and quashed the intimation sent by the AO under Section 143(1)(a) on the ground that the same was illegal and bad in law. While passing the impugned order dated 18.5.2007 the tribunal held that changing the status of the firm/trust to an AOP falls outside the ambit and purview of Section 143(1)(a) . Even though the trust was not registered with the CIT the assessment could not be made in the status of an AOP under Section 143(1)(a). Moreover, the AO could have done so by issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act.

Mr. Yogesh Putney, counsel for the revenue has argued that admittedly the respondent-trust was not registered with the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act therefore, was not entitled to the exemption as claimed under Section 11 of the Act and further the assessee failed to furnish any explanation/reply to the letter dated 12.3.1998 written by the AO to him allowing him an opportunity to explain why the status of the trust may not be taken as AOP in the absence of registration. Therefore, the trust/assessee was rightly treated as an AOP at the time of processing the return under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. In support of his argument learned counsel for the revenue has placed heavy reliance upon the proviso (iii) to Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act.

We have heard learned counsel for the revenue and perused the record.

The material question which, in our view, requires to be decided is whether the AO was justified in changing the status of the assessee from a 'Trust to an AOP while processing the return under of India and others (1992) 193 ITR 95, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that as per provisions of Section 143(1)(a) of the Act the AO could allow or disallow only such claims which were admissible/inadmissible on the basis of returns and documents accompanying the return. It was also held that AO had no power to disallow the claim merely on the ground that no proof was furnished by the assessee. While interpreting Clause (iii) of the first proviso to Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, it was held as under- “The said clause clearly provides that the Income- tax Officer can make an adjustment to the income or loss declared in the return if, on the basis of the information available in such return, accounts or documents, the deduction allowance or relief claimed is prima facie inadmissible. The conclusion that the claim of the assessee is inadmissible must, in other words, flow from the return as filed. No power is given to the Income- tax Officer to disallow a claim for the reason that there is no proof in support of the claim made by the assessee. In a way, the said clause (iii) of the proviso is analogous to section 154 of the Act. Where it is evident from the return as filed, along with the documents in support thereof, that a claim of the assessee is inadmissible, only then an adjustment under the said proviso can be made. If proof in support of the claim is not furnished by an assessee, then for the lack of proof, no disallowance or an adjustment can be made. The only option which is open to the Income -tax Officer, in such a case, is that he can require the assessee to furnish proof in which case he will presumably have to issue notice under section 143(2). This is also evident from the fact that, except for the documents specified, the assessee is not required to file the entire books of account or other documents along with the return. The proof in support of the claim may be evidenced from correspondence, from the books of account or other documents and it is not the law, as we understand it, that, in support of a claim made in the return for deduction or non-taxability of a as under:- “A bare reading of section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, makes it clear that if, on the basis of the return filed by the assessee, any tax or interest is found due after adjustments, as set out in the section, an intimation has to be sent to the assessee specifying the sum so payable. Similarly, if any refund is found due to the assessee on the basis of the said return, it shall be granted. However, the first proviso to the section authorises the Assessing Officer to make certain adjustments while calculating the tax or interest payable or while granting refund. The adjustments permitted to be made are also specified under the proviso. Clause (iii) of the first proviso lays down that unless the return or the accompanying documents or accounts show that the deduction, allowance or relief claimed therein is prima facie inadmissible on the basis of information available in the said documents, such deduction or allowance claimed cannot be disallowed. The phrase “prima facie” is not defined in the Act. In common parlance the phrase “prima facie” means “on the face of it”. Going by the literal and dictionary meaning of the phrase “prima facie”, for the purposes of adjustments under clause (iii) of the proviso, a deduction claimed must be inadmissible on the face of the return, documents and accounts accompanying it. If the deduction or allowance or relief so claimed is capable of a debate or requires further proof it cannot be made under clause (iii) of the proviso to section 143(1)(a) of the Act. It is not open to the Assessing Officer to make any adjustment in the returned income by disallowing any claim for deduction, allowance or relief, unless he is satisfied on the basis of information available in the return, documents and the accounts accompanying it, that such a claim is inadmissible on the face of it and there is no possibility of any debate thereon. If anything more is read into the power of the Assessing Officer to make unilateral adjustments it would render the provision wholly arbitrary and unreasonable because : (a) a disallowance is made without giving an opportunity to the assessee to explain his view point in support of the deduction or allowance, and (b) additional tax on the increased amount is charged from him arbitrarily. This would not only be in total violation of the principles of natural justice, it will also be not in consonance with the spirit of the provision to cause minimum inconvenience to the assessee and at the same time put the assessee on guard against claiming inadmissible deductions and allowances. No prejudice will be caused to the Revenue. In a given case where the Assessing Officer has any doubt about the allowability of deduction or claim made by the assessee, it is open to him to issue a notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 and have the evidence in support thereof.

The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. K.V. Mankaram & Co., (2000) 245 ITR 353 while interpreting the scope of Section 143(1)(a) of the Act where the status of a firm was changed to an AOP held as under:- “The proceeding under section 143(1)(a) does not result in an order of assessment. The intimation given under section 143(1)(a) cannot be treated an order of assessment. It is only to be deemed an order for the limited purpose of sections 154, 246 and 264 of the Act. Under section 143(1)(a) of the Act, the intimation is deemed to be a notice of demand under section 156 of the Act. Except intimation, no other order is contemplated under section 143(1)(a). There is a distinction between an order of assessment and a notice of demand. Under section 246 also, a clear distinction is made between an intimation and an order of assessment. The Assessing Officer cannot, under section 143(1)(a), change the status of a firm to “association of persons” which can be done under section 185 of the Act, at the time of assessment.”

We are in respectful agreement with the judgements in Samtel Color Ltd.'s & K.V. Mankaram & Co.'s cases (supra).

The scope and ambit of the powers vested with the AO for making prima facie adjustments at the time of processing the return under Section 143(1)(a) are very limited. The change of status of the assessee from Trust to an AOP is not covered in the nature of adjustments mentioned in any of the proviso to Section 143(1)(a) muchless under proviso (iii) of the said Section. It is immaterial that the trust was not registered with the CIT and was not eligible for the exemptions under Section 11 of the Act because there must be power vested with the AO to allow or disallow the claim while processing the return which is not within the scope of Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. It is not open to the Assessing Officer to make any adjustment in the returned income by disallowing any claim for deduction, allowance or relief, unless he is satisfied on the basis of information available in the return, documents and the accounts accompanying it, that such a claim is inadmissible on the face of it and there is no possibility of any debate thereon. If anything more is read into the power of the Assessing Officer to make unilateral adjustments it would render the provision wholly arbitrary and unreasonable.

In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises for the determination of this Court and therefore, the present appeal is dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE January 29, 2008 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) ps