Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an Income Tax Return for AY 2019-20. The CPC issued an intimation under Section 143(1) disallowing an alleged claim under Section 54, despite the assessee contending no such claim was made in the return. The Ld. CIT(A) had restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for valuation by the DVO.
Held
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not made any claim under Section 54 of the Act in the filed return. Consequently, an adjustment or disallowance under Section 143(1)(a) regarding a claim not made by the assessee was deemed inadmissible and was deleted. The CIT(A)'s decision was also deleted.
Key Issues
Whether a disallowance under Section 143(1)(a) related to a Section 54 claim is valid when the assessee had not made any such claim in the income tax return.
Sections Cited
54, 143(1), 143(1)(a), 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI
Present for: Appellant by : Shri Dev Kumar Kothari, FCA Respondent by : Smt. Amuldeep Kaur, JCIT Date of Hearing : 24.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 24.03.2025 O R D E R Per Bench : The captioned appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Bengaluru [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”] vide order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1065159558(1) dated 27.05.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2019-20.
Smt. Amuldeep Kaur, JCIT appeared on behalf of the Respondent and Shri Dev Kumar Kothari, FCA appeared on behalf of the assessee.
It is submitted by the Ld. AR that the assessee had filed his return of income for the impugned assessment year on 30.08.2019. It was the submission that the CPC issued a show cause notice asking the assessee Rohit Bajoria, AY: 2019-20 why his claim u/s. 54 is not liable to be disallowed. The assessee had responded giving detailed explanation. However, the assessee did not say that he had not made a claim u/s. 54 of the Act. The CPC subsequently issued intimation u/s. 143(1) disallowing the alleged claim u/s. 54 of the Act. It was the submission that on appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) restored the issue to the Assessing Officer directing valuation by the DVO in respect of the claim of variation of stamp authority valuation and the actual consideration. It was the submission that when there is no claim u/s. 54 such an adjustment is not permissible.
In reply, the Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer and that the assessee could make the necessary submission before the Assessing Officer.
We have heard the rival submissions. An intimation is issued in respect of a return filed by the assessee. Such intimation is to make adjustment in regard to certain specific issues which are provided in the provisions of section 143(1)(a). The assessee had admittedly not made a claim u/s. 54 of the Act in the return filed by him. Since the assessee has not made the claim u/s. 54, hence it no more lies in the realm of the 143(1)(a) to enter into any issue which has not been claimed by the assessee and for making any disallowance. As there is no claim u./s. 54 of the Act in the return filed by the assessee, the disallowance made in the intimation u/s. 143(1)(a) in respect of the valuation itself is inadmissible. This being so, the addition as made in the intimation u/s. 143(1)(a) and ad decided by the Ld. CIT(A) stands deleted.