Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, D BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA
(�नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2018-19) बनाम/ M/s. Checkmate Services The Dy.CIT Pvt. Ltd. CPC, Bangalore Vs. G.F 6-9, Amaan Tower, Present Jurisdiction Suvas Colony, Fatehgunj, Vadodara, Gujarat - 390002 The Dy.CIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Vadodara �थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACC8465A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ� ओर से /Appellant by : Shri M. R. Sahu, AR. ��यथ� क� ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT. DR Date of Hearing 03/04/2025 Date of Pronouncement 23/04/2025 O R D E R
PER SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, AM:
This appeal was originally decided vide order dated 20.05.2024 and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. Thereafter, the assessee had filed a Miscellaneous Application on the ground that additional legal ground taken by the assessee were omitted to be adjudicated. The Miscellaneous Application was decided vide order MA No. 121/Ahd/2024 (in 03.01.2025, and the order of the Tribunal dated 20.05.2024 was recalled only to the limited extent to adjudicate on the issue of validity of 143(1) order in absence of prior show cause notice having been issued to the [M/s. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT] A.Y. 2018-19 - 2 – assessee. In the present order we are, therefore, required to examine this aspect only.
Shri M. R. Sahu, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that no prior intimation was sent to the assessee before making adjustment in the intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). He submitted that in the ITR- 6 for A.Y. 2018-19, the assessee had mentioned email address as “contact@checkmatesservices.com” and that no communication was received by the assessee on this email address. He further submitted that the intimation sent by the department on any other email address was not a valid service of notice.
Per contra, Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Ld. CIT.DR submitted that before processing return of income, a notice of adjustment u/s.143(1)(a) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 23.03.2019, which was sent on the assessee’s email address “accounts@checkmatesservices.com”. He further submitted that the intimation u/s.143(1)(a) of the Act dated 24.02.2019 was also sent on the same email address “accounts@checkmatesservices.com”, which was duly received by the assessee. The Ld. CIT.DR submitted that the email address “accounts@checkmatesservices.com” was the primary email account of the assessee registered with the Department and that when the subsequent intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act sent to the assessee on this email address was duly received by it, the assessee cannot take a plea that the earlier notice for adjustment sent on this email address was not received. He further submitted that the email address “accounts@checkmatesservices.com” was also on the site of [M/s. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT] A.Y. 2018-19 - 3 – Ministry of Corporate Affairs. The Ld. CIT. DR submitted that identical issue was involved in assessee’s own case in A.Y. 2019- 20 reported in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd, vs. ADIT, CPC (164 taxmann.com 498) and the ITAT had held that the email address “accounts@checkmatesservices.com” belonged to the assessee and that a notice sent on this email address was valid communication.
We have considered the rival submissions. The contention of the assessee is that no prior show cause notice was issued before passing the order u/s.143(1) of the Act. On the other hand, the Revenue has brought on record evidence to the fact that prior intimation dated 23.03.2019 was issued by the CPC to the assessee. From the User Profile Administration, which has been brought on record by the Revenue, it is found that a communication under Reference No. CPC/1819/G22/1885278565 was sent to the assessee on email address “accounts@checkmatesservices.com”. Thereafter, intimation order dated 24.12.2019 was emailed to the assessee on 26.12.2019 on the same email ID i.e. “accounts@checkmatesservices.com”. The assessee has not denied the receipt of intimation order dated 24.12.2019 on this email address. As rightly pointed out by the Revenue, when the subsequent intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act sent to the assessee on this email address was duly received by the assessee, it cannot take a plea that the earlier notice for adjustment sent on this email address was not received. A copy of the notice dated 23.03.2019 for the proposed adjustment u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act has also been brought on record by the Revenue. Therefore, the contention of the assessee that no prior intimation of the adjustment was given is found to be incorrect.
[M/s. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT] A.Y. 2018-19 - 4 – 5. The other objection of the assessee is that the email address mentioned in the ITR was “contact@checkmatesservices.com”, whereas the email ID on which the communication was sent was different i.e. “accounts@checkmatesservices.com”. This issue was adjudicated by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2019-20 (supra). It was held therein that the CPC had all along made all communication with the assessee on the email ID “accounts@checkmatesservices.com” only, which belonged to the assessee. Therefore, the communication regarding proposed adjustment before processing of the return of income, sent on this email ID, was legally valid intimation. The facts involved in the present case are identical to the facts of A.Y. 2019-20. Therefore, following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal for A.Y. 2019-20, we do not find any merit in the ground taken by the assessee and the same is dismissed.
In the result, the additional legal ground taken by the assessee that no show cause notice regarding the proposed adjustments was issued to the assessee before passing the intimation order u/s.143(1) of the Act, is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
This Order pronounced on 23/04/2025