BILATIBARI TEA COMPANY PVT. LTD.,,UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2, , JALPAIGURI

PDF

ITA 548/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 December 2025AY 2013-14Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member Bilatibari Tea Company Pvt. Ltd...... N S Road, Islampur Bazar, PO & PS. Islampur, Dist. Uttar Dinajpur, W.B-733202. [PAN: AABCB9014B] Appellant vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Jalpaiguri.......................................................Respondent Appearances by: Shri Rajib Mukherjee & Sujit Basu, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Smt. Ruchika Sharma, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of3 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The assessee, a black tea manufacturer, filed its income tax return for AY 2013-14 with a total income of Rs.38,74,130/-. The CPC processed the return and made an adjustment of Rs.1,62,31,115/- to the returned income u/s 143(1)(a)(ii), increasing the total income to Rs.2,01,05,285/-. This adjustment was made by disallowing business expenditures and adjusted depreciation.

Held

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer/CPC acted beyond jurisdiction by making the adjustment u/s 143(1)(a) without any arithmetical error in the return and without issuing a notice u/s 143(2). Finding that the assessee had correctly computed its total income, the Tribunal concluded that the adjustment was not sustainable in law. Consequently, the order passed u/s 143(1)(a)(ii) was quashed, and the addition was deleted.

Key Issues

Whether the adjustment made by the Assessing Officer/CPC under Section 143(1)(a)(ii) for disallowing expenditures was valid when there was no arithmetical error in the return and no notice under Section 143(2) was issued, and if the AO/CPC exceeded its jurisdiction.

Sections Cited

250, 143(1)(a), 143(1)(a)(i), 143(1)(a)(ii), 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

Assessment Year: 2013-14 Bilatibari Tea Company Pvt. Ltd.…..………………….……….……….……Appellant N S Road, Islampur Bazar, PO & PS. Islampur, Dist. Uttar Dinajpur, W.B-733202. [PAN: AABCB9014B] vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Jalpaiguri.…………...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri Rajib Mukherjee & Sujit Basu, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Smt. Ruchika Sharma, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : December 03, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : December 22, 2025 ORDER

Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 05.03.2025 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”) passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2013–14.

The only issue raised in the grounds of appeal that the A.O/CPC erred in disallowing a sum of Rs.1,62,31,155/- in the return of the assessee by way of adjustment u/s 143(1)(a)(ii).

Facts in brief are that the assessee is a manufacturer of black tea and the assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 for a total income of Rs.38,74,130/- and same was processed u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act for a total income of Rs.2,01,05,285/-, making an adjustment of Rs.1,62,31,115/- to the retuned income of the assessee.

Bilatibari Tea Company Pvt. Ltd 4. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by restoring the appeal of the assessee to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-verification of the claims made by the assessee in the return of income.

After hearing the rival submissions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the Assessing Officer made addition to the income of the assessee which is a prima facie adjustment and as per audited profit and loss account for the year ending 31.3.2013, the net profit of your appellant was for Rs.42,57,173/- and after adjustment of depreciation allowance and claim under Rule 8 of I.T. Rules, 1962, taxable income of the assessee was for Rs.38,74,130/- and the same had been adjusted by the CPC u/s 143(1), although there was no arithmetical error in the return filed by the assessee u/s section 143(1)(a)(i). We further find that the A.O/CPC has acted beyond jurisdiction to calculate the total income of the assessee and addition has been made without specifying the nature and details of the adjustment made. From the record, it can be presumed that the Assessing Officer indeed accepted the return of the assessee as no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act in this case was issued. We also find that the assessee had correctly computed the total income and the Assessing Officer/CPC had not assigned any justification for not allowing the business expenditures for a total sum of Rs.1,58,19,744/-, booked under the head "other expenses" in the return of income and also the adjusted depreciation and claim under Rule for a total sum of Rs.3,83,043/-. We note that there was no arithmetical error in the return filed by the assessee and since the assessee did not make any incorrect claim in its return, the adjustment made by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(1)(a) is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Considering the above, we quash the order passed u/s 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act dated 19.04.2014 and the aforesaid addition is deleted. 2