PAWAN HANS LIMITED,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 19(2), DELHI

ITA No. 1799/DEL/2025
PAWAN HANS LIMITED, NOIDA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI

BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1799/Del/2025
िनधा रणवष /Assessment Year:2018-19

PAWAN HANS LIMITED
Corporate Office, C-14,
Sector-1, Noida Raghunathpur,
Gautam Buddha Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh.
PAN No.AAACP1561A
बनाम
Vs.
DCIT,
Circle 19(2),
New Delhi.
अपीलाथ Appellant
यथ/Respondent

Assessee by Shri Ved Jain, Advocate,
Shri Aayush Garg, CA &
Ms. Upadhyay, CA
Revenue by Shri Mahesh Kumar Bansal, CIT DR

सुनवाईकतारीख/ Date of hearing:
27.08.2025
उोषणाकतारीख/Pronouncement on 12.11.2025

आदेश /O R D E R
PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M.

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld.
Addl./JCIT (Appeals)-2, Bangalore dated 10.01.2025 for the AY 2018-
19 in dismissing the appeal of the assessee holding that the order passed u/s 143(1) is merged with the regular assessment made u/s 143(3) of the Act and therefore the intimation does not have legs to PAWAN HANS LIMITED, NOIDA stand on its own once the regular assessment proceedings are initiated and the appeal against the intimation/order u/s 143(1) of the Act became infructuous.
2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the present appeal arises from the order of the Ld. CIT(A), whereby the appeal filed by the assessee against the intimation passed u/s 143(1) of the Act was dismissed. The CIT(A) has proceeded on the reasoning that once the matter was taken up for scrutiny and a regular assessment order u/s 143(3) has been framed, the intimation passed u/s 143(1) gets merged with the assessment order u/s 143(3), and therefore, no separate appeal against the order u/s 143(1) lies. In doing so, reliance has been placed on the decision of the ITAT Delhi in the case of South India Club vs. ITO.
3. Ld. Counsel submitted that the said decision is distinguishable on facts and is applicable only in cases where, while framing assessment u/s 143(3), the Assessing Officer has discussed, analyzed, and adjudicated upon the very issues which were the subject matter of adjustment u/s 143(1). However, where the Assessing Officer, while passing the order u/s 143(3), has merely adopted the income as assessed u/s 143(1), without examining or adjudicating upon the adjustment made by CPC in the intimation, then in such a situation,
PAWAN HANS LIMITED, NOIDA a separate and independent appeal lies against the intimation passed u/s 143(1), and the CIT(A) is duty bound to adjudicate upon those issues.
4. Ld. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the ITAT
Bangalore Bench in the case of M/s Areca Trust vs.CIT(A) in ITA
No.433/Bang/2023, where a similar issue had arisen. In that case, the assessee had not filed an appeal against the intimation passed u/s 143(1) and instead had raised the issue in the appeal against the regular assessment order passed u/s 143(3). The Tribunal held that since the Assessing Officer, while passing the order u/s 143(3), had not adjudicated upon the adjustments made u/s 143(1), such issues could not be considered in the appeal against the order u/s 143(3).
The assessee was accordingly granted liberty to file a separate appeal, along with a petition for condonation of delay, against the intimation u/s 143(1).
5. Ld. Counsel submitted that the facts of the present case are identical. From a perusal of the assessment order passed u/s 143(3), it is evident that the Assessing Officer has not discussed, analyzed, or adjudicated upon the adjustments made by CPC in the intimation u/s 143(1). Instead, the Assessing Officer has simply carried forward the figure of income determined u/s 143(1) into the order u/s 143(3),
PAWAN HANS LIMITED, NOIDA without any independent application of mind. In such circumstances, the appeal against the intimation u/s 143(1) was very much maintainable, and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the same on the ground of merger.
5.1
Ld. Counsel further submitted that this position also finds support from the provisions of section 143(4) of the Act, which specifically provides that where a regular assessment is made u/s 143(3), the tax, interest, and demand shall be computed in accordance with the adjustments made u/s 143(1). This clearly indicates that the adjustments made in an intimation u/s 143(1) survive even when a regular assessment order is framed u/s 143(3), unless such adjustments are specifically adjudicated upon in the order u/s 143(3). It is submitted that the issue is further covered in favour of the assessee by subsequent decisions, including the decision of ITAT Chennai in the case of Sun Tex Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
is unsustainable in law. The matter deserves to be set aside back to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate upon all the issues raised by the assessee in the appeal against the intimation passed by CPC u/s 143(1) of the Act.
7. On the other hand, Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below.
8. Heard rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. We find considerable merit in the submissions of Ld. Counsel for the assessee. On perusal of the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) dated 11.05.2021 which is placed at pages 246 to 255 reveals that the Assessing Officer started the computation of income with the figure of Rs.139,05,73,030/- which is the income determined by the CPC u/s 143(1) of the Act after making the adjustment. In the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act there is absolutely no discussion on the addition which was already made in the intimation passed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The additions made in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) are totally different additions and in the circumstances it cannot be said that the intimation passed u/s 143(1) of the Act is merged with the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. We find that more or less similar issue came up for consideration before the ITAT, Bangalore in the case of M/s Arika
PAWAN HANS LIMITED, NOIDA

Trust Vs. CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi in ITA No.433/Bang./2023 dated
26.07.2023, wherein the Tribunal held as under:
“7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. On perusal of the impugned Assessment
Order passed u/s 143(3) (order dated 12.02.2021), it is clear that AO has assessed the total income at Rs.23,29,62,420/- solely relying on the adjustment made by the AO/CPC in the intimation made u/s 143(1) of the Act. In the impugned
Assessment Order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, there is no independent discussion as regards the income assessed at Rs.23,29,62,420/-. The relevant portion of the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 12.02.2021 reads as follows:
“4. In response to the notice, the assessee responded via e-proceedings and submitted the details called for.
Details filed are examined and the income is assessed at Rs.23,29,62,420/- as per 143(1)(a) of the Act.”
8. Section 246A specifically provides for an appeal as against intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act. In the instant case, total income has been assessed at Rs.23,29,62,420/- as per the intimation passed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Therefore, the cause of action for the assessee arises from the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act and appeal ought to have been filed as against the same. The assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act merely adopts the assessed figures in the intimation order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, no cause of action arises from the order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act.
9. Section 143(3) of the Act only mentions that on completion of regular assessment u/s 143(3) or 144 of the Act, the tax paid by assessee u/s 143(1) of the Act shall be deemed to have been paid toward such regular assessment. That by itself does not mean there is merger of intimation u/s 143(1) with that of regular assessment u/s 143(3)/144 (unless issue has been discussed and adjudicated in regular assessment u/s 143(3)/144 of the Act). Assessee, against the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, has filed a rectification application u/s 154
of the Act (vide application dated 16.06.2020) and the same is pending disposal. The CIT(A) in the impugned order has directed the AO to dispose of the said rectification application dated 16.06.2020. Moreover, if assessee is advised to file an PAWAN HANS LIMITED, NOIDA appeal as against the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, a liberal approach may be taken for condonation of delay since assessee’s application for rectification of the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act has been filed within time and same is pending disposal. With the above said observation, the grounds of the assessee are rejected.”

8