RAJIV PANDURANG LEMBHE,AURANGABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), AURANGABDA, AURANGABAD

PDF

ITA 1952/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 January 2026AY 2021-22Bench: DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.1952/PUN/2025 (Assessment Year 2021-2022) | Rajiv Pandurang Lembhe, At Post Sawangi, Jalgaon Road, Gajanan Mandir, Harsool S.O., Aurangabad, Maharashtra-431008 | vs. | ITO, Ward-1(5), Aurangabad | |---|---|---| | PAN : AEBPL 0860 J | | | | (Appellant) | | (Respondent) | | For Assessee | : | Shri Ramesh Thete Patil (virtual) | |---|---|---| | For Revenue | : | Shri Vishwajit Shinde, JCIT | | Date of Hearing | : | 20.01.2026 | | Date of Pronounceme4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The assessee filed an updated income tax return for AY 2021-22, declaring income but failing to pay the associated tax liability. The Central Processing Centre (CPC) processed this return, raising a demand, which the assessee contended was an error as the return, being defective, should have been treated as non-est. The assessee claimed the income was wrongly shown due to mis-consultation by their tax consultant.

Held

The Tribunal did not quash the intimation from the CPC. Instead, it restored the issue to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for re-examination. The assessee was directed to submit an affidavit and provide financial statements, bank statements, and income details to substantiate their claim of incorrect income declaration and that the income should be taxed in another year.

Key Issues

Whether a return filed with unpaid tax liability should be processed by the CPC under Section 143(1), and if the assessee's claim of incorrectly declared income due to mis-consultation warrants re-evaluation by the Assessing Officer.

Sections Cited

250, 143(1), 139(8A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE

Before: DR. MANISH BORAD

Hearing: 20.01.2026Pronounced: 28.01.2026

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of ADDL/JCIT (Appeals), Panchkula [“CIT(A)”], dated 07/08/2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) which is arising out of intimation passed u/s. 143(1) of the Act, dated 06.12.2024 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2021-22.

The assessee has raised four grounds of appeal

, but the effective issue raised is that when assessee filed a defective return without paying tax liability appearing therein, CPC erred in processing such return inspite of return being defected u/s. 139(8A) of the Act a non-est return in the eyes of 2. ITA.No.1952/PUN./2025 Rajiv Pandurang Lembhe law and therefore intimation issued by the CPC deserves to be quashed.

3. At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that in the return filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2021-22, income of ₹12,74,730 has been declared, but assessee has not paid due tax liability of ₹4,81,700 therefore return is defective. However, in spite of defective return, the CPC grossly erred in processing such defective return. He also submitted that assessee was mis-consulted by the Tax Consultant and the addition/adjustment in the intimation made is to be subject to tax in another year. He, therefore, prayed that CPC’s intimation dated 06.12.2024 deserves to be quashed.

4. On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of Ld. CIT(A).

5. I have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before me. I note that the assessee is an individual, has furnished updated return on 31.03.2024 for the A.Y. 2021-22 declaring income of ₹12,74,730. Tax liability calculated on the return of income at ₹4,81,700 has not been paid. CPC has processed the return and raised demand in the processing u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act. Learned counsel for the assessee has contended referring to various decisions mentioned in the written submissions that since assessee has filed defective return as tax liability remained unpaid therefore, such return should be treated as invalid return and should be treated as no return has been furnished. However, the details of income furnished in the income tax return are not placed before this Tribunal. Also the claim of the assessee that the income declared in such return is liable to be taxed in another year has also not been supported by any evidence. The return has 3 ITA.No.1952/PUN./2025 Rajiv Pandurang Lembhe been filed by the assessee under his own signature/digital sign and duly validated through OTP issued by the Income tax e- filing portal. Even if, the fact is not disputed that the assessee has not paid the tax liability computed in the income tax return, but then what is the fate of the income earned by the assessee, if any, during the year and in the alternative, if such income is to be taxed for another year. Here I would like to take note of the Article 265 of the Constitution of India which provides that “No tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law". This provision ensures that the government cannot arbitrarily impose or collect taxes without proper, valid legislation passed by the Parliament or State Legislatures, thereby upholding the rule of law. In the present case, the assessee pleads that wrong income has been shown due to inadvertent mistake and mis-consultation by Tax Consultant and there is actually no tax liability. However, this claim of the assessee needs necessary verification because certainly no tax should be levied or collected except by authority of law. But, if assessee has actually earned income during the year and is liable to pay any tax, then in the garb of a defective return, the Revenue should not be deprived of the legitimate tax to be collected from the assessee.