MICROLAND LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

Q: Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1), Section 143(2), Section 143(3), Section 143(1D), Section 241A

ITA 1321/BANG/2024Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 August 2024AY 2020-21Bench: SMT. BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member), SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU (Accountant Member)1 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the intimation passed under section 143(1)(a) was bad in law because a notice under section 143(2) had already been issued, making the processing under section 143(1) unnecessary. The merits of the additions made in the 143(1) intimation were considered academic.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an original and a revised return of income. Subsequently, a scrutiny assessment order was passed under section 143(3) on the same day an intimation under section 143(1) was processed. The assessee argued that the 143(1) intimation was invalid as a notice under section 143(2) had already been issued.

What were the issues?

Whether an intimation under section 143(1) is valid when a notice under section 143(2) has already been issued for the assessment year. Whether the principle of merger applies to the 143(1) intimation and the 143(3) assessment order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 143(2),Section 143(3),Section 143(1D),Section 241A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

For Appellant: Shri B.K. Manjunath, CA

For Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, JCIT-DR

PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal arises out of order dated 06/06/2024 passed by Ld.Addl./JCIT(A)-2, Chennai for A.Y. 2020-21 on following grounds of appeal. “1. That the orders of the Learned authorities below in so far as it is against the appellant is against the law, facts, circumstances, natural justice, without juri iction, bad in law and all other known principles of law.

That the total income computed and the total tax computed is disputed

That the Learned CIT-Appeals (NFAC) erred in coming to wrong conclusion that the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act dated: 26.09.2022 and scrutiny order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144B o

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 account Sign 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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →