Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a charitable trust, filed its return declaring income of Rs. 5,607/-. The AO-CPC processed the return under Section 143(1) and made adjustments totaling Rs. 13,00,000/-, increasing the total income. The assessee filed a rectification application under Section 154, which was rejected. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal against the Section 154 order, stating the issues were debatable.
Held
The Tribunal held that the current provisions of Section 143(1) allow for adjustments even on debatable issues, distinguishing it from earlier provisions. However, the issue on merits remained unaddressed by the CIT(A). Therefore, the assessee was granted liberty to file an appeal before the CIT(A) against the intimation under Section 143(1), with directions to decide it on merits after condoning any delay.
Key Issues
Whether adjustments under Section 143(1) are permissible for debatable issues, and whether the merits of such adjustments were appropriately addressed by the lower authorities.
Sections Cited
143(1), 154, 250, 36(1)(vii), 10AA, 11(2), 11(5), 10(23C), 139, 142(1), 156, 89, 90, 90A, 91, Chapter VIII Part A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “H” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAVSHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL
Date of Hearing – 05/06/2025 Date of Order – 16/06/2025
O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M.
The assessee has filed the present appeals against the separate impugned orders of even date 28/09/2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment years 2021-22 & 2022-23.
ITAs No.6159 & 6160/Mum/2024 (A.Ys. 2021-22 & 2022-23) 2
Since both the appeals pertain to the same assessee, involving similar issues arising out of a similar factual matrix, these appeals were heard together as a matter of convenience and are being decided by way of this consolidated order. With the consent of the parties, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2021-22 is considered as a lead case, and the decision rendered therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to the other appeal filed by the assessee. For ready reference, the grounds raised
by the assessee in its appeal for the assessment year 2021-22 are reproduced as follows: - “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), hereinafter referred to as the CIT (A), has erred in confirming the order dated 24-1-2023 passed by the Centralised Processing Centre, hereinafter referred to as the CPC, u/s. 154 of the Act rejecting the request of the appellant made u/s. 154 of the Act.
2. The appellant respectfully submits that the CPC has erred in making an adjustment in respect of an issue which is not permissible u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act considering the fact that there are divergent views in relation to the issue involved. The appellant further submits that the CIT (A) has erred in confirming the order u/s. 154 rejecting rectification request in relation to such impermissible adjustment u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act.
3. Without prejudice to any of the above contentions, the appellant respectfully submit that the addition of Rs. 13,00,000/-, being made to its total income on account of the adjustment made u/s. 143(1) of the Act is not justified on merits also and the said addition is also resulting in double addition and the same therefore deserves to be deleted.
4. The appellant therefore prays that appropriate relief may please be allowed in its case and the CPC may please be directed to compute the income of the appellant at Rs. 5,607/- as shown in the Return of Income filed by the appellant.”
The solitary grievance of the assessee is against the adjustment made by the AO-CPC under section 143(1) of the Act while processing the return of income.
ITAs No.6159 & 6160/Mum/2024 (A.Ys. 2021-22 & 2022-23) 3
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a charitable trust 4. and for the assessment year 2021-22, the assessee filed its return of income on 11.12.2021, declaring a total income of Rs.5,607/- The return filed by the assessee was processed vide intimation dated 25.11.2022 issued under section 143(1) of the Act by the AO–CPC computing the total income of the assessee at Rs.13,00,000, after making the following adjustments under section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act: -
Against the aforesaid intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act, the assessee filed a rectification application, which was rejected vide order dated 24.01.2023 passed under section 154 of the Act. In appeal by the assessee against the order passed under section 154 of the Act, the learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal on the basis that the issues raised are controversial in nature, and therefore, are beyond the ambit of the provisions of section 154 of the Act. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) refused
ITAs No.6159 & 6160/Mum/2024 (A.Ys. 2021-22 & 2022-23) 4 to interfere with the order passed under section 154 of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us.
During the hearing, the learned Authorized Representative (“learned AR”) by referring to the findings of the learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, submitted that once the issue is considered to be a controversial issue and therefore is considered to be beyond the scope of the provisions of section 154 of the Act, no adjustment under section 143(1) of the Act can be made on such issue where the divergent views are possible. In support of this submission, the learned AR placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in (2018) 404 ITR 564 (Bom).
On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative (“learned DR”), vehemently relying upon the impugned order, submitted that the assessee filed the appeal before the learned CIT(A) only against the order passed under section 154 of the Act, and therefore, the same was rightly dismissed by the learned CIT(A) as the issue was debatable in nature. The learned DR further submitted that no appeal was filed by the assessee against the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act. Therefore, the learned DR submitted that no fault can be found in such a finding of the learned CIT(A).
We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. The primary contention of the assessee, in the present appeal, is that the issues on which the adjustment have been made
ITAs No.6159 & 6160/Mum/2024 (A.Ys. 2021-22 & 2022-23) 5 by the AO-CPC under section 143(1) of the Act are debatable/contentious in nature, and therefore, no adjustment can be made on such issues under section 143(1) of the Act. Thus, before proceeding further, it is relevant to analyse the scope of adjustment which can be made under section 143(1) of the Act by the AO-CPC. In respect of the aforesaid contention, the learned AR placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Bajaj Auto Financial Ltd. (supra). From the perusal of the aforesaid decision, it is, at the outset, evident that the same pertains to the assessment year 1993-94. The Hon’ble High Court, while holding that intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the Act cannot be issued on a debatable issue, observed as follows: - “8. However, the Assessing Officer completely ignored the note made by the applicant in its computation of return, indicating that the basis of claim for bad debts is the decision in Gujarat High Court in Vithaldas H. Dhanjibhai Bardanwala (surpa). In the above case, even a provision debited to the profit and loss account was allowed as bad debts, where corresponding credit entires are posted in the bad debts reserve account. It held that it was not necessary to post credit entries in the ledger account of the concerned parties. It was on the basis of the aforesaid decision of the Gujarat High Court that the claim in respect of the provision for bad debts was made by the applicant assessee. Once, reliance is placed upon a decision of a Court and/or Tribunal to make a claim, then even if the Assessing Officer has a different view and does not accept the view, yet the claim itself becomes debatable. This is so laid down in Instruction No.1814 dated 4th April, 1989 issued by the CBDT in respect of the scope of prima facie disallowance under Section 143(I)(a) of the Act. In fact, paragraph no.9 thereof provides that where a claim for deduction has been made on the basis of a decision of a High Court/Tribunal, then, even if there is contrary view expressed by another High Court and/or Tribunal or an appellate Authority, the issue itself becomes debatable. In such cases, no adjustment under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act is permissible. Thus, disallowance of a claim can be made only after hearing the assessee who has made the claim.
9. Further, our Court in Khatau Junkar Ltd. (supra) had while dealing with the word "prima facie inadmissible" in clause iii) of Section 143(I)(a) of the Act has held that the word "prima facie" means on the face of it the claim is not admissible. It means the claim does not require any further inquiry before disallowing the claim. The Court observed that where a claim has been made which requires further inquiry, it cannot be disallowed without hearing the parties and/or giving the party an opportunity to submit proof in support of its ITAs No.6159 & 6160/Mum/2024 (A.Ys. 2021-22 & 2022-23) 6 claim. In the absence of Section 143(1)(a) of the Act being read in the above manner i.e. debatable issues cannot be adjusted by way of intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act, would lead to arbitrary and unreasonable intimations being issued leading to chaos.
10. In the present facts, it is undisputed that the decision of Gujarat High Court was referred to in the computation of income. Thus, the Assessing Officer could not have disallowed the claim on a prima facie view that the same is inadmissible. In fact, there can be no dispute that even according to the Assessing Officer, the issue was debatable. This is evident from the fact when the applicant assessee had filed an application under section 154 of the Act for deletion of the adjustment made of provision of bad debts by intimation under Section 143(I)(a) of the Act, it was disallowed on the ground that it is a debatable issue. This itself would indicate that whether the claim of a provision for bad debts is deductible under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act or not is debatable. Further, the above claim for deductions as made by the applicant was by following the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Vithaldas Dhanjibhai (supra). Thus, a debatable issue. Therefore, the same could not have been disallowed by way of an intimation under section 143(I)(a) of the Act.”
By analysing the legislative history of section 143(1) of the Act, we find that prior to the amendment by the Finance Act, 1999, w.e.f. 01.06.1999, the provisions of section 143(1) read as follows: -
“143. (1) (a) Where a return has been made under section 139, or in response to a notice under subsection (l) of section 142,— (i) if any tax or interest is found due on the basis of such return, after adjustment of any tax deducted at source, any advance tax paid and any amount paid otherwise by way of tax or interest, then, without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (2), an intimation shall be sent to the assessee specifying the sum so payable, and such intimation shall be deemed to be a notice of demand issued under section 156 and all the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly; and (ii) if any refund is due on the basis of such return, it shall be granted to the assessee: Provided that in computing the tax or interest payable by, or refundable to, the assessee, the following adjustments shall be made in the income or loss declared in the return, namely:- (i) any arithmetical errors in the return, accounts or documents accompanying it shall be rectified; (ii) any loss carried forward, deduction, allowance or relief, which, on the basis of the information available in such return, accounts or documents, is prima facie admissible but which is not claimed in the return, shall be allowed;
ITAs No.6159 & 6160/Mum/2024 (A.Ys. 2021-22 & 2022-23) 7
(iii) any loss carried forward, deduction, allowance or relief claimed in the return, which, on the basis of the information available in such return, accounts or documents, is prima facie inadmissible, shall be disallowed: [Provided further that an intimation shall be sent to the assessee whether or not any adjustment has been made under the first proviso and notwithstanding that no tax or interest is due from him:] (Provided also] that an intimation [* * *] under this clause shall not be sent after the expiry of two years from the end of the assessment year in which the income was first assessable.]”
Thus, from the careful perusal of the provisions of section 143(1) of the Act, prior to the amendment by the Finance Act, 1999, it is evident that the adjustment under the provision of the section was permissible only in the case where, (i), there is any arithmetic error in return, accounts or documents accompanying it, or (ii) any loss carried forward, deduction, allowance or relief shall be allowed, which is prime facie admissible on the basis of the information available in the return, accounts or documents, or (iii) any loss carried forward, deduction, allowance or relief shall be disallowed, which is prima facie inadmissible on the basis of information available in such return, accounts or documents.
We find that vide Finance Act, 1999, w.e.f. 01.06.1999, the provisions of section 143(1) of the Act were amended and the requirement of prima facie admissibility or inadmissibility was deleted from the provisions of section 143(1) of the Act. The provisions of section 143(1) of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 1999, w.e.f. 01.06.1999, reads as follows: -
“143. [(1) Where a return has been made under section 139 or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142—
ITAs No.6159 & 6160/Mum/2024 (A.Ys. 2021-22 & 2022-23) 8 if any tax or interest is found due on the basis of such return, after adjustment of any tax deducted at source, any advance tax paid, any tax paid on self- assessment and any amount paid otherwise by way of tax or interest, then, without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (2), an intimation shall be sent to the assessee specifying the sum so payable, and such intimation shall be deemed to be a notice of demand issued under section 156 and all the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly; and (ii) if any refund is due on the basis of such return, it shall be granted to the assessee and an intimation to this effect shall be sent to the assessee: Provided that except as otherwise provided in this sub-section, the acknowledgement of the return shall be deemed to be intimation under this sub-section where either no sum is payable by the assessee or no refund is due to him: Provided further that no intimation under this sub-section shall be sent after the expiry of two years from the end of the assessment year in which the income was first assessable.”
Further, it is also pertinent to note the provisions of section 143(1) of the Act, as it stood, during the year under consideration, and the same read as follows: -
“143. (1) Where a return has been made under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, such return shall be processed in the following manner, namely:— (a) the total income or loss shall be computed after making the following adjustments, namely:— (i) any arithmetical error in the return; (ii) an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return; (iii) disallowance of loss claimed, if return of the previous year for which set off of loss is claimed was furnished beyond the due date specified under sub- section (1) of section 139; (iv) disallowance of expenditure [or increase in income] indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return; (v) disallowance of deduction claimed under [section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.—Deductions in respect of certain incomes", if] the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; or ITAs No.6159 & 6160/Mum/2024 (A.Ys. 2021-22 & 2022-23) 9
(vi) addition of income appearing in Form 26AS or Form 16A or Form 16 which has not been included in computing the total income in the return: Provided that no such adjustments shall be made unless an intimation is given to the assessee of such adjustments either in writing or in electronic mode: Provided further that the response received from the assessee, if any, shall be considered before making any adjustment, and in a case where no response is received within thirty days of the issue of such intimation, such adjustments shall be made: Provided also that no adjustment shall be made under sub-clause (vi) in relation to a return furnished for the assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 2018; (b) the tax, interest and fee, if any, shall be computed on the basis of the total income computed under clause (a); (c) the sum payable by, or the amount of refund due to, the assessee shall be determined after adjustment of the tax, interest and fee, if any, computed under clause (b) by any tax deducted at source, any tax collected at source, any advance tax paid, [any relief allowable under section 89,] any relief allowable under an agreement under section 90 or section 90A, or any relief allowable under section 91, any rebate allowable under Part A of Chapter VIII, any tax paid on self-assessment and any amount paid otherwise by way of tax, interest or fee; (d) an intimation shall be prepared or generated and sent to the assessee specifying the sum determined to be payable by, or the amount of refund due to, the assessee under clause (c); and (e) the amount of refund due to the assessee in pursuance of the determination under clause (c) shall be granted to the assessee: Provided that an intimation shall also be sent to the assessee in a case where the loss declared in the return by the assessee is adjusted but no tax, interest or fee is payable by, or no refund is due to, him: Provided further that no intimation under this sub-section shall be sent after the expiry of [nine months] from the end of the financial year in which the return is made. Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section,— (a) "an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return" shall mean a claim, on the basis of an entry, in the return,— (i) of an item, which is inconsistent with another entry of the same or some other item in such return; (ii) in respect of which the information required to be furnished under this Act to substantiate such entry has not been so furnished; or ITAs No.6159 & 6160/Mum/2024 (A.Ys. 2021-22 & 2022-23) 10
(iii) in respect of a deduction, where such deduction exceeds specified statutory limit which may have been expressed as monetary amount or percentage or ratio or fraction; (b) the acknowledgement of the return shall be deemed to be the intimation in a case where no sum is payable by, or refundable to, the assessee under clause (c), and where no adjustment has been made under clause (a). (1A) For the purposes of processing of returns under sub-section (1), the Board may make a scheme for centralised processing of returns with a view to expeditiously determining the tax payable by, or the refund due to, the assessee as required under the said sub-section. (1B) Save as otherwise expressly provided, for the purpose of giving effect to the scheme made under sub-section (1A), the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that any of the provisions of this Act relating to processing of returns shall not apply or shall apply with such exceptions, modifications and adaptations as may be specified in that notification; so, however, that no direction shall be issued after the 31st day of March, 2012. (1C) Every notification issued under sub-section (1B), along with the scheme made under sub-section (1A), shall, as soon as may be after the notification is issued, be laid before each House of Parliament. (1D) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the processing of a return shall not be necessary, where a notice has been issued to the assessee under sub-section (2): Provided that the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply to any return furnished for the assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 2017.”
Thus, from the comparative analysis of the provisions of section 143(1) of the Act, as reproduced in the foregoing paragraphs, it is evident that the specific requirement of the adjustment being possible, inter-alia, only in a case of prima facie admissibility or prima facie inadmissibility is no longer a condition precedent after the amendment to section 143(1) of the Act by the Finance Act, 1999, w.e.f. 01.06.1999. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the interpretation of the words “prima facie admissibility” by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. (supra), which pertains to the assessment year 1993-94, by placing reliance upon its earlier
ITAs No.6159 & 6160/Mum/2024 (A.Ys. 2021-22 & 2022-23) 11 decision in Khatau Junkar Ltd. vs. K.S. Pathania, reported in (1992) 196 ITR 156 (Bom), does not support the case of the assessee as the legislature has changed the language of the provision of section 143(1) of the Act after the amendment by the Finance Act 1999, w.e.f. 01.06.1999.
We find that while analysing the paradigm shift in language of the provision of section 143(1) for processing the Income Tax Return, the Co- Ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Kalpesh Synthetics (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, reported in (2022) 96 ITR(T) 690 (Mum –Trib), observed as follows: -
“5. In our considered view, it is quite evident, from a careful look at the related statutory provisions, that there is a material difference in the scheme of processing the income tax return under section 143(1)(a) as it stands now vis- à-vis as it stood at the point of time when Khatau Junkar (supra) by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court was delivered. That was the time when incorrect claims could be disallowed only when such a deduction was "on the basis of information available in such return, accounts or documents is prima facie inadmissible" [see section 143(1)(a)(iii) as it then stood] and it was in this context that the connotations of the expression "prima facie inadmissible" came up for consideration before Hon'ble Courts above. While the expression used in section 143(1)(a)(i) is materially similar inasmuch as its wordings are "an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return", there are two important things that one must bear in mind- (a) firstly, the expression "an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return" is well defined in Explanation to section 143(1), and; (b) secondly, and perhaps much more importantly, that is just one of the permissible types of adjustments, denying a deduction, under section 143(1)(a) which goes well beyond such adjustments and includes the cases such as "(iii) disallowance of loss claimed, if the return of the previous year for which set off of loss is claimed was furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; (iv) disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return; (v) disallowance of deduction claimed under sections 10AA, 80-IA, 80-IAB, 80-IB, 80-IC, 80-ID or section 80-IE, if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under subsection (1) of section 139; or (vi) addition of income appearing in Form 26AS or Form 16A or Form 16 which has not been included in computing the total income in the return". So far as the first point is concerned, it must be noted that the expression "incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return", for the purpose of section 143(I)(a), is further defined, under Explanation to section 143(1), and it means that a claim, on the basis of an entry, in the return,—(i) of an item, which is inconsistent with another entry of the same or some other item in such return; (ii) in respect of which the information required to be furnished under this Act to substantiate such entry has not been ITAs No.6159 & 6160/Mum/2024 (A.Ys. 2021-22 & 2022-23) 12 so furnished; or (iii) in respect of a deduction, where such deduction exceeds specified statutory limit which may have been expressed as monetary amount or percentage or ratio or fraction. On the second point, it is useful to bear in mind the fact that the scheme of section 143(1)(a) thus permits the processing of the income tax return in the manner that the total income or loss of the assessee is computed after making the adjustments for (i) any arithmetical error in the return; (ii) an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return; (iii) disallowance of loss claimed, if return of the previous year for which set off of loss is claimed was furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; (iv) disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return; (v) disallowance of deduction claimed under sections 10AA, 80-IA, 80-1AB, 80-IB. 80-IC, 80-ID or section 80-IE, if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub- section (I) of section 139; or (vi) addition of income appearing in Form 26AS or Form 16A or Form 16 which has not been included in computing the total income in the return". The adjustments under clause (vi) above are no longer permissible after lst April 2018. Clearly, thus, there is a significant paradigm shift in the processing of income tax returns under section 143(1), and the decisions rendered in the context of old section 143(1)(a) cease to be relevant. Learned counsel thus derives no advantage from the judgments rendered in the context of old section 143(1)(a)- such as Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court's judgment in the case of Khatau Junkar (supra). To that extent, we must uphold the plea of the learned Departmental Representative.”
Therefore, based on a detailed analysis of the provisions of section 143(1) of the Act, as it stood during the year under consideration, we do not find any merit in the submissions of the learned AR that the adjustment under section 143(1) of the Act cannot be made on a debatable issue. Furthermore, it is notable that the provisions of section 143(1) of the Act now specifically require an opportunity for hearing to be provided to the assessee, as well as consideration of the response received from the assessee before making any adjustment. This is another aspect of the current provisions of section 143(1) of the Act that distinguishes it from the provisions considered by the Hon’ble High Court in the aforementioned decisions.
From the perusal of the submissions of the assessee made before the learned CIT(A), it is evident that the issues on which the rectification
ITAs No.6159 & 6160/Mum/2024 (A.Ys. 2021-22 & 2022-23) 13 application was filed by the assessee are debatable. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the findings of the learned CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee and upholding the order passed under section 154 of the Act. However, at the same time, it is evident that the issue on merits of the adjustments made by the AO-CPC has remained unaddressed by the learned CIT(A) for technical reasons, since the assessee’s appeal before the learned CIT(A) was only against the order passed under section 154 of the Act. In the present case, it is undisputed that the assessee did not file any appeal against the intimation issued by the AO-CPC under section 143(1) of the Act. Therefore, in the peculiar facts of the present case and in the larger interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to grant a liberty to the assessee to file an appeal before the learned CIT(A) against the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act along with an application duly explaining the delay in filing the appeal. We further direct the learned CIT(A) to consider the request of the assessee for condonation of delay in the interest of justice and decide the appeal filed by the assessee on merits. With the above directions, the present appeal by the assessee against the order passed by the learned CIT(A), which in turn arose from the rectification order passed under section 154 of the Act, is dismissed.
As in its appeal for the assessment year 2022-23, the assessee has raised similar grounds, therefore, our findings/directions as rendered in the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2021-22 shall apply mutatis mutandis to this appeal. Accordingly, with similar directions, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed.
ITAs No.6159 & 6160/Mum/2024 (A.Ys. 2021-22 & 2022-23) 14
In the result, both appeals by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 16/06/2025