SHAKILA BEGUM,KOLKATA vs. ADIT, CPT, BANGALURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 50/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 March 2025AY 2020-21Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI SANAJY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) was bad in law. Since no show cause notice was issued as per the proviso to Section 143, the intimation under Section 143(1) was unsustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed her return of income declaring Rs.30,52,010/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) at an income of Rs.1,05,52,010/-, making an addition of Rs.75,00,000/-.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made under Section 143(1) is valid when no show cause notice was issued to the assessee as per the proviso to Section 143.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(1),Section 143(3),Section 143

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI SANAJY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Jalan, AR
For Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Hearing: 12.03.2025Pronounced: 12.03.2025

Present for: Appellant by : Shri Ankit Jalan, AR Respondent by : Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 12.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 12.03.2025 O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), ADDL/JCIT(A)-1, Vadodara [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”] vide order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1070191734(1) dated 08.11.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2020-21.

2.

Shri Ankit Jalan, AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.

3.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income on 15.02.2021 declaring total income at Rs.30,52,010/-. Return was processed u/s. 143(1) dated 18.12.2021 at an income of Rs.1,05,52,010/- by making an addition of Rs.75,00,000/-. The Ld. AR submitted before the Bench the ld. CIT(A) was wrong and unjustified in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer amounting to Rs.75,00,000/- even though the same is correctly offered for taxation in the income tax return filed. So, according to him, the addition so made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and is liable to be deleted.

4.

In reply, the Ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that the issue can be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for further verification.

5.

We have considered the rival submissions. Obviously, the appeal is against the order passed u/s. 143(1). Consequently, the issues cannot be sent back to the Assessing Officer for verification in so far as the verification can be done in an order u/s. 143(3) of the Act only. Further, a perusal of the intimation issued u/s. 143(1) dated 18.12.2021 shows that no show cause notice has been issued to the assessee as per the requirement of the 1st proviso to section 143 of the Act. This having not been done, we are of the view that the intimation issued u/s. 143(1) is unsustainable and consequently, the adjustment made u/s. 143(1) of the Act is deleted.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →