GOPAL SNACKS PVT LTD ,RAJKOT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAJKOT

ITA 498/RJT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 December 2025AY 2015-1628 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was against the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act. However, the CIT(A) observed that the AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) without making any additions, and the assessed income was the same as the income processed by the CPC under section 143(1). The CIT(A) concluded that since no adverse action was taken against the assessee in the impugned assessment order, there was no ground of appeal. The grievance, according to the CIT(A), arose from the processing of the return of income by the CPC under section 143(1) at a higher income than the returned income, and this grievance could not be addressed by filing an appeal against a different assessment order. Therefore, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as not relevant and allowable. The Tribunal, in its decision, did not address the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee regarding the disallowance of section 80JJAA deduction or the validity of CPC's adjustments under section 143(1). The Tribunal's operative direction is not explicitly stated in the provided text, but the context suggests that the appeal before the ITAT is likely to be decided based on the CIT(A)'s reasoning.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Gopal Snacks Pvt. Ltd., filed its return of income for Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21 declaring a total income of Rs. 58,44,15,970/-. This was processed by the CPC, Bengaluru under section 143(1) at Rs. 60,75,10,430/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment by accepting the income processed by the CPC, resulting in a total assessed income of Rs. 60,75,10,430/-. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) against the AO's order, but the CIT(A) confirmed the AO's action, stating that no adverse action was taken in the assessment order and the grievance arose from the initial processing by the CPC. The assessee is now in appeal before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on facts and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the total income of Rs. 60,75,10,430/- determined in the assessment order under section 143(3), when the income processed by the CPC under section 143(1) was Rs. 61,46,09,250/-. 2. Whether, on facts and in law, the CIT(A) ought to have deleted the disallowance of deduction under section 80JJAA of Rs. 3,01,93,275/-, as it was subsequently allowed by the CPC in a rectification order under section 154. 3. Whether, on facts and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the total income as computed by the CPC, ignoring that adjustments made in the intimation under section 143(1) were not permissible under section 143(1)(a)(i) to (vi). 4. Whether, on facts and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the total income as determined by the CPC, when intimation of proposed adjustments was not given to the appellant as per the 1st Proviso to Section 143(1). 5. Whether, on facts and in law, the CIT(A) ought to have deleted the additions/disallowances made in the intimation under section 143(1) and rectification order under section 154, as such adjustments did not comprise a mistake apparent on record. 6. Whether, on facts and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the total income as processed by the CPC, ignoring that notice for enhancing income was not served to the appellant under section 154(3). Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the total income as determined by the CPC. Specifically, it was contended that the deduction under section 80JJAA of Rs. 3,01,93,275/- was wrongly disallowed by the CPC initially but later allowed by the CPC in a rectification order. The assessee also argued that the adjustments made by the CPC under section 143(1) were not permissible and that proper intimation was not provided as per the proviso to section 143(1). The assessee relied on the fact that the AO accepted all its explanations and completed the assessment under section 143(3) without making any additions, thereby accepting the income processed by the CPC. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue did not file any specific contentions in the provided text. The CIT(A) observed that the grievance arose from the processing order under section 143(1) and not from the assessment order under section 143(3), which did not make any adverse additions. Therefore, the appeal against the assessment order was considered not relevant.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 154,Section 80JJAA,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT

Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI & SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA

Hearing: 19/11/2025Pronounced: 08/12/2025

Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member: Captioned two appeals filed by the same assessee, pertaining to assessment years ( A.Ys.) 2015-16 & 2020-21, are directed against the separate orders passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi / Commissioner of Income-tax

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →