PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL UDAIPUR vs. M/S G.R. INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/7/2022HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:5229-DB27 January 2025Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeals are dismissed as there is no substantial question of law for consideration. The Court reasoned that the legal position settled by the Supreme Court in ACIT vs. Rajesh Zaveri (supra) clearly states that an intimation under Section 143(1) is not an assessment. The admitted facts show that the assessee filed a revised return on 18.10.2016, after a notice under Section 143(1) was issued on 12.10.2016. The Court found that the submission of the revised return was not beyond the period of limitation as provided under Section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act. In the absence of any other provision in Section 80IA or any other part of the Act prohibiting such a claim, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal were correct in concluding that there was no legal impediment to accepting the claim of deduction made in the revised return. The ratio of the decision is that a deduction under Section 80IA can be allowed if claimed in a revised return filed within the statutory time limit, even if not claimed in the original return, especially when the intimation under Section 143(1) is not considered an assessment.

What were the facts?

The Revenue (Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Central Udaipur) appealed against an order dated 23.11.2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the order of the CIT(A) which allowed the assessee (M/s G.R. Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.) a deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The deduction was claimed in a revised return filed after the original return and after a notice under Section 143(1) was issued. The Revenue contended that such a deduction, not claimed in the original return but in a revised return, was illegally allowed. The assessment year is not explicitly stated, but the notice under Section 143(1) was issued on 12.10.2016, and the revised return was filed on 18.10.2016.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the allowance of a claim for deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, made in a revised return, when not claimed in the original return, is legally permissible, considering the provisions of Sections 139(1), 143, and 80IA of the Act? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the orders of the CIT(A) and ITAT were correct. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in ACIT vs. Rajesh Zaveri, 161 Taxman 316, which held that an intimation under Section 143(1) is not an assessment. They further contended that the revised return was filed within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 139(5) of the Act. Therefore, there was no legal impediment to accepting the deduction claim made in the revised return. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue contended that both the CIT(A) and the ITAT committed a grave and patent illegality by allowing the claim for deduction under Section 80IA. They argued that the scheme of Sections 139(1), 143, and 80IA does not permit a deduction to be claimed in a revised return if it was not claimed in the original return.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80IA,Section 139(1),Section 143(1),Section 139(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2025:RJ-JD:5229-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 7/2022 Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Udaipur, Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Udaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s G.r. Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd, 80 Gr House,shahi Complex,sector 11 Hiran Magri,udaipur ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prateek Gattani HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order 27/01/2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. The revenue has preferred this appeal against the order dated 23.11.2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, whereby the appeal of the revenue has been dismissed while affirming the order passed by the CIT(A) in the matter of allowance of claim of deduction under Section 80IA of the IT Act. 3. Learned counsel for the revenue would submit that both the CIT (Appeal) as well as ITAT committed grave and patent illegality in law in holding that even though claim of deduction under Section 80IA of the IT Act was not made in the original return, the same was illegally allowed. The scheme contained under provisions of Sections 139(1) and 143 of the IT Act read with Section 80 IA of the IT Act does not permit claim of deduction, (Uploaded on 30/01/2025 at 02:16:26 PM) (Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 11:15:29 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:5229-DB] (2 of 2) [ITA-7/2022] once the same has not been claimed in the original return, but claimed in the revised return. 4. The orders passed by the CIT (Appeal) as well as ITAT proceeded on the basis of legal position settled by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Rajesh Zaveri, 161 Taxman 316, wherein it has been held that an intimation under Section 143(1) of the IT Act is not an assessment. 5. The admitted facts of the present case are that a notice under Section 143(1) was issued on 12.10.2016 after filing of the return, whereafter, on 18.10.2016, the assessee filed revised return. The legal position as has been adumbrated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision makes it clear that submission of revised return could not be said to be submitted/filed beyond the period of limitation as provided under sub-section 5 of Section 139 of the IT Act. 6. In the absence of there being any other provision contained either Section 80 IA or under any other provision of the IT Act, the CIT (Appeal) as well as Tribunal have rightly concluded that there was no legal impediment in accepting the claim of deduction made in the revised return. 7. In that view of the matter, we do not find any substantial question of law for consideration in the appeal. 8. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ 62-Taruna/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 30/01/2025 at 02:16:26 PM) (Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 11:15:29 PM)

More judgments on Section 80IA

All 1,796 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80IA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →