Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES ‘C’: NEW DELHI.
(Assessment Year: 2021-22) Dabur India Limited, vs. ACIT, Circle 7 (1), 8/3, Asaf Ali Road, Delhi. Delhi – 110 002. (PAN : AAACD0474C) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Chandan Agarwal, CA REVENUE BY : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 17.09.2025 Date of Order : 10.12.2025 O R D E R
PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The assessee has filed appeal against the order of the Learned Addl./JCIT (A), Kochi [“Ld. JCIT(A)”, for short] dated 17.03.2025 for the Assessment Year 2021-22 raising following grounds of appeal :-
1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in holding that the appeal filed against order passed u/s 143(1) is infructuous as the order is merged with the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(3) r.w.s 144B.
2. That the order of the ld. CIT(A) is bad in law as no opportunity of being heard was granted to the appellant.
3. Without prejudice to the ground number 1 and 2 above, the Ld. CIT failed to address the following issues on the merits of the case. 3a. The CPC has mechanically erred in adding back Rs.16.19 crs. to the income of the appellant inspite the fact that such R&D expense is already added back and the deduction of same was claimed as per the provisions of section 35. 3b. That the CPC has mechanically erred in not reducing an amount of Rs.(140.47) crs. representing provision for deferred tax in computation of MAT income as per the provisions of section 115JB.
The above grounds of appeal
are independent and without prejudice to one another.
2. Brief facts of the case are, assessee filed its return of income for AY 2021-22 declaring total income of Rs.11,89,38,88,686/-. The total income of the assessee was determined under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) dated 22.09.2022 by the CPC at Rs.12,05,57,19,770/- and raised a demand of Rs.34,84,16,830/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was also selected for scrutiny for complete scrutiny through CASS. Accordingly, the notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) were issued and served on the assessee. The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 25.01.2024. After completing the assessment, the AO determined the total income of the assessee after disallowing/adjustment towards transfer pricing adjustment, disallowance u/s 80G, mismatch of export data and Rs.38,96,80,471/- by considering the income computed u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act an determined the total taxable income of Rs.12,44,54,00,241/-.
3. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. Addl./JCIT (A), Kochi (for short ‘the JCIT’). After considering the grievance of the assessee that income was determined u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act in which CPC has not considered carried forward credit u/s 115JB of the Act and not allowed the capital expenditure incurred by the assessee u/s 35(1)(iv) of the Act. In this regard, assessee also filed rectification application u/s 154 of the Act, however the same was not disposed off. After considering the above grievance of the assessee, ld. JCIT dismissed the appeal of the assessee with the observation that intimation passed u/s 143(1) dated 22.09.2022 against which assessee has filed the present appeal has been subsequently merged in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act. Since the intimation u/s 143(1) against which the present appeal has been filed has merged in the subsequent assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, the present appeal filed by the assessee against the intimation u/s 143(1) is treated as infructuous and accordingly present appeal is dismissed.
4. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee is in appeal before us. At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee brought to our notice the above facts on record and submitted that the ld. JCIT(A) has dismissed the appeal against the order passed u/s 143(1) as infructuous whereas the AO in regular assessment has not considered the issues contained or disallowances made u/s 143(1) of the Act and he merely completed the assessment by considering the total income as per section 143(1) without analyzing the issue. Therefore, the issue raised by the assessee is independent of the regular assessment passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Act. He prayed that the issue may be remitted back to the ld. CIT (A) to consider the issues raised by the assessee and it is not infructuous.
On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue relied on the findings of ld. JCIT (A).
Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed that intimation order u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act was passed by the CPC by disallowing deduction claimed u/s 35(1) and not allowed MAT credit to the assessee. Aggrieved with the same, assessee filed a rectification application u/s 154 of the Act and the same was not acted upon. As per the provisions of the Act, the 154 application should have been disposed off within six months from the date of filing the above said application. We observed that the case of the assessee was selected for 143(3) of the Act. Since the rectification application was not passed within six months, the duty imposed on the AO while completing the regular assessment/s 143(3) to consider the grievance of the assessee, however we observed that AO has not considered the grievances raised by the assessee u/s 154 nor considered the same during regular assessment. The AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) after verifications/examination of various other issues and completed the assessment by considering the total income as per intimation passed u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act instead of total income declared by the assessee in the return of income. Since the AO has merely considered the total income u/s 143(1) of the Act without addressing the grievance of the assessee in application filed u/s 154 clearly indicates that the AO by not considering the grievance of the assessee, it clearly shows that the intimation passed u/s 143(1)(a) does not merge with the regular assessment u/s 143(3). In normal situation, the intimation u/s 143(1) merges with the regular assessment u/s 143(3). However, in the present case, the AO has not considered the grievance of the assessee raised against the intimation passed u/s 143(1), it clearly indicates that it is not merged with the regular assessment passed u/s 143(3). Considering the peculiar facts available on record, none of the authorities have addressed the grievance of the assessee raised against the 143(1) as well as rectification passed u/s 154 of the Act. In our view, the Assessing Officer had only adopted the total income as per intimation order u/s 143(1) and completed the assessment order, it does not mean that the same is merged with the regular assessment. Therefore, we are inclined to remit this issue back to the file of ld. JCIT(A), Kochi to consider the grievance of the assessee and adjudicate afresh by considering the relevant information contained in rectification application filed u/s 154 of the Act. It is needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard be given to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 10th day of December, 2025.