SUDHA DHOOT,KOLKATA vs. AO WARD 40(4), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 268/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 August 2025AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal determined that the intimation issued under Section 143(1) was unsustainable and quashed it, as the mandatory intimation required by the first proviso to Section 143(1) had not been issued to the assessee. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Addl./JCIT(A) for AY 2018-2019, which was delayed by 55 days but condoned by the Tribunal. The Addl./JCIT(A) had dismissed the appeal because the return of income was filed belatedly under Section 139(1), leading to the denial of carry forward loss, and no intimation under the first proviso to Section 143(1) was issued.

What were the issues?

Whether an intimation issued under Section 143(1) is valid and sustainable when the return of income is filed belatedly and the mandatory intimation under the first proviso to Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act has not been issued to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(1),Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN

Hearing: 05/08/2025Pronounced: 05/08/2025

(नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year. :2018-2019) Sudha Dhoot, Vs Assessing Officer Ward-40(4), 29B, Rabindra Sarani, 3rd Floor, Kolkata Room No.10E, WB-700001 PAN No. : ADWPD 2538 F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Mrinmoy Basak, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 05/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 05/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 16.10.2023 passed by the ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-12, Mumbai for the assessment year 2018-2019 2. None represented on behalf of the assessee. Shri Mrinmoy Basak, ld.Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.

3.

The appeal of the assessee is delayed by 55 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay stating therein sufficient reasons which are plausible and not found to be false. Ld. Sr. DR also did not raise any serious objection in condoning the delay. Accordingly, the delay of 55 days is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing.

4.

As the notice has been sent through RPAD, Email and also through the revenue and the acknowledgement of the notice having been served through the revenue by RPAD is available. As none represented on behalf of the assessee, therefore, the appeal of the assessee is being heard ex- parte qua the assessee.

5.

A perusal of the order of the ld. Add/JCIT(A) shows that the ld. Addl/JCIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the return of income has been filed belatedly i.e. the return is beyond the time prescribed u/s.139(1) of the Act. Consequently the carry forward loss has been denied. A perusal of the assessment order shows that no intimation as required under the first proviso to Section 143(1) of the Act has been issued to the assessee. Ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the orders of the ld. Addl/JCIT(A).

6.

I have considered the submissions of the ld. Sr. DR and perused the orders of the authorities below. As it is noticed that the intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act has been issued without issuing intimation as required under the first proviso to Section 143(1) of the Act, it is held that the intimation issued u/s.143(1) of the Act is unsustainable and the same stands quashed.

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →