Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed a return declaring nil income, claiming exemption under section 10(23C)(iv). An intimation under section 143(1) determined a taxable income of Rs. 112,15,57,160/-. The assessee contested this before the First Appellate Authority, which deleted the addition.
Held
The Tribunal held that the directions issued by the Ld. CIT(A) for re-examination of the claim under section 10(23C)(iv) were untenable, especially since an order under section 143(3) had already been passed, considering the said provisions.
Key Issues
Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in directing the AO to re-examine the claim for exemption under section 10(23C)(iv) after the addition under section 143(1) was deleted and a section 143(3) order was already passed.
Sections Cited
143(1), 10(23C)(iv), 139(5), 143(3), 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘A’: NEW DELHI
Before: MS. MADHUMITA ROY
Year: 2023-24] Hamdard Laboratories India, DCIT, Circle(Exempt), Hamdard Building, 2A/3, Asaf Civic Centre, New Delhi Ali Road, New Delhi-110002 Vs PAN-AAATH0842H Appellant Respondent Appellant/Assessee by Shri S.R Mehta, CA Respondent/Revenue by Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Date of Hearing 19.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 20.03.2026 ORDER PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM,
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)/Addl/JCIT(A), Madurai, [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)] dated 27.10.2025 arising out of intimation under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 18.11.2024 for the Assessment Year 2023-24. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961.
The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
(1) That the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) after having held that the intimation us 143(1) without providing an opportunity to the assessee as mandated by the Proviso to Section 143(1) was not correct, erred in directing the AO to examine the claim for exemption u/s 10(23C)(iv) which was not an issue before him. (2) Without Prejudice to Ground No 1, the Addl/JCIT(A) erred in issuing the aforesaid directions to the AO, once the intimation had ceased to exist having become invalid and a nullity in the eyes of law. (3) Without Prejudice to Grounds 1 & 2, the Addl/JCIT(A) erred both on facts and in law in issuing the directions aforesaid, overlooking the fact that in a order passed u/s 143(3) of the act on 26/03/2025, the Assessment Unit had not made any addition of the amount impugned.
The only issue emanating from the appeal of the assessee is regarding the action of ld. CIT(A) in directing the ld. AO to examine the claim of the assessee u/s 10(23C)(iv) of the Act. Brief factual matrix of the case is that the assessee had filed its Return of Income on 24.11.2023 declaring nil income while claiming exemption u/s 10(23C)(iv) of the Act. The assessee had, pursuant to a notice from the Revenue, had filed a revised return under section 139(5) on 28.12.2023. The CPC, Bangalore issued an intimation dated 18.11.2024, determining taxable income of the assessee at Rs.112,15,57,160/-. The assessee contested the impugned adjustment of CPC before the ld. First Appellate Authority which deleted the impugned addition, concurring with the argument of the assessee that no adjustment/addition by CPC was maintainable under section 143(1) unless an opportunity of being heard was given. It was submitted that the assessee was not given any opportunity of being heard by the CPC before making the impugned addition. The appellant assessee is aggrieved by Page 2 of 4 the order of ld. First Appellate Authority, who directed the AO to re-examine the claim of the assessee u/s 10(23C)(iv) of the Act.
We have heard rival submission in the light of materials available on record. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that once the ld. First Appellate Authority had concluded the assessee’s appeal in its favour on the issue of additions u/s 143(1) without an opportunity of being heard, there was no need to have given directions for consideration of provisions of section 10(23C)(iv) of the Act in its case. It was further pleaded that the impugned directions of ld. CIT(A) given vide its order dated 27.10.2025 were irrelevant and untenable given the fact that order under section 143(3) was already passed in assessee’s case by the Revenue on 26.03.2025. Thus, it was submitted that the matter was concluded.
Per Contra, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities.
We have noted from the order of the ld. First Appellate Authority that he had issued directions for re-examination of assessee’s case in the light of provisions of section 10(23C)(iv) of the Act. We have also noted from pages 26 to 36 of the order of the ld. AO dated 26.03.2025 that he had considered the provisions of section 10(23C)(iv) of the Act. Accordingly, we find force in the arguments of the appellant assessee that no case for issuance of directions was made out in assessee’s case. Accordingly, we set-aside and quash the order
Page 3 of 4 dated 27.10.2025 under section 250 passed by ld. CIT(A)/Addl/JCIT, Madurai. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is therefore allowed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 20th March, 20256