ORIENT CRAFT LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, GURGAON
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the AO correctly exercised powers under section 154 as the intimation under section 143(1) was not merged with the assessment order under section 143(3) when the issues were different. The withdrawal of the appeal against the 143(1) order did not preclude the rectification.
What were the facts?
The assessee's return for AY 2017-18 was initially processed under section 143(1) with an addition for delayed PF/ESI deposit and house property income. The assessee withdrew an appeal against this order after a scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) was completed. Subsequently, the AO rectified the 143(3) order under section 154 to include the additions from the 143(1) intimation, stating they were missed.
What were the issues?
Whether additions made in a section 143(1) intimation can be rectified into a section 143(3) assessment order under section 154, and whether the doctrine of merger applies in this scenario.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show listHide 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.
- Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT1,392 citing448 ITR 518 · 2022 · SC · Read judgment
- ITA Nos.162, 164, 165, 167 & 168 of 2002 Page 24 of 51 in CIT v. SS Ahluwalia34 citing138 ITR 391 · 1982 · HC
- Sanjay Kumar v. ITO3 citing152 Taxmann.com 594 · 2023
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’ : NEW DELHI
Before: SH. M. BALAGANESH & SH.ANUBHAV SHARMA
Per Anubhav Sharma, JM :
The appeal is preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 27.12.2022 of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in appeal no. 11587/2021-22 arising out of an appeal before it against the order dated 31.03.2021 passed u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the DCIT-CC-II, Gurgaon (hereinafter referred as the Ld. AO).
1097/Del/2023
The facts in brief are that the assessee has filed return of Income for AY 2017-18 on 30.11.2017 declaring an income of Rs. 18,10,42,260/-from Business and Profession, House property and other Sources. Intimation/
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.
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 154
- Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs Rakesh Kumar Malani, JaipurITA 1425/JPR/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs Anita Sharma, JaipurITA 1344/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Ramtirath Bawa, Nagpur vs ITO Ward3(4), NagpurITA 327/NAG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Mohinder Singh, Nagpur vs ITO Ward 3(4), NagpurITA 322/NAG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Ramakrishna Reddy Makireddy, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle-5(1), HyderabadITA 70/HYD/2026[2007-08]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2007-08
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Jharkhand Contractors Association Thro Its President- Pramod Kumar vs. Bharat Coking Coal LTD. Thro Its Chairman Cum Managing DirectorJharkhand · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Isc Processors Private Limited vs. Superintendent,Range-Iv, Burrabazar Div, CGST And Cx, Kolkata (N) Commissionerate And AnrCalcutta · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Raashi Constructions vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial TaxesKarnataka · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Bidasaria Fenster Solutions vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 13 Oct 2026
- Amit Agency vs. Commissioner, CGST And CxPatna · 13 Oct 2026