FAURECIA EMISSIONS CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ASSISTANT / DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1) CHE, CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the Revenue was required to provide the assessee with an opportunity of being heard before making adjustments under Section 143(1)(a). A communication under Section 139(9) for defects in the return does not satisfy this requirement.
What were the facts?
The assessee's return of income was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, resulting in a demand due to the denial of TDS credit. This denial was based on a discrepancy between Form 26AS and the declared receipts in the return.
What were the issues?
Whether the Revenue is obligated to provide an opportunity of being heard before making adjustments under Section 143(1)(a), and if a Section 139(9) notice suffices as such an opportunity.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & HON’BLE SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA / APL / S / 250 / 2024-25 / 1073254005(1) dated 13.02.2025 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), Addl / JCIT (A)-1, Kolkata for the assessment year 2023-24. The reference to the word “Act” in this order hereinaf
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 139(9)
- P D Memorial Religious and Educational… vs DCIT (Exemption) Circle-2, ChandigarhITA 932/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2021-22
- P D Memorial Religious and Educational… vs DCIT (Exemption) Circle-2, ChandigarhITA 932/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2021-22
- Pintu Babulal Purohit, Bangalore vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2)(2), BangaloreITA 136/BANG/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed8 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
- Ravi Rajgarhia, Kolkata vs I.T.O., Ward - 33(1), KolkataITA 1284/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2026AY 2013-2014
- Harvinder Singh, Karnal vs ITO Ward 1 Karnal, KarnalITA 3219/DEL/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed13 Aug 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Md. Akhtar Ansari, Proprietor Of M/S Indian Associates vs. State Of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Tax Dept.Jharkhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Amarjothi Granites (INDIA) PVT. LTD., Berhampur, Ganjam vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mishka Steels LLP And Anr. vs. The Superintendent Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Cx, Range-Ii, Behala Div. And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited vs. Union Of INDIAGujarat · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co Operative Housing Society LTDBombay · 14 Oct 2026