“Section 143(1)(a)(i)”

Section References (mined)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)(i)104 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 143(1)(a)(i) is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 143(1)(a)(i)

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji

167 ITR 471 · 1987 · Supreme Court

3,926

citing judgments

Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.

CIT v. Kabul Chawla

380 ITR 573 · 2016 · High Court

3,235

citing judgments

In a search assessment under Section 153A, additions can only be made for completed or non-abated assessment years if incriminating material relevant to those years is found during the search, although notice under Section 153A(1) is mandatorily issued for six assessment years preceding the search.

Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT

243 ITR 83 · 2000 · Supreme Court

2,943

citing judgments

For revision under Section 263, the Assessing Officer's order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue; if either condition is not met, the revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked. An order is not erroneous merely because the Assessing Officer did not record the details of enquiries conducted, provided due enquiries were made.

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory

359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court

2,590

citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.

38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT

2,267

citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.

322 ITR 158 · 2010 · Supreme Court

2,228

citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income is not automatically leviable if the assessee has made a full disclosure of all particulars and the addition or disallowance arises from a difference of opinion.

CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.

313 ITR 340 · 2009 · High Court

2,118

citing judgments

Where an assessee claims that investments were made out of own funds, interest disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D may not apply if the assessee demonstrates the availability of sufficient interest-free funds to cover such investments.

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT

223 ITR 480 · 1997 · High Court

2,040

citing judgments

A court or tribunal is not bound to answer a reference or adjudicate an appeal on its merits if the party at whose instance the proceeding is made fails to appear at the hearing or take necessary steps for its proper conduct.

Judgments citing Section 143(1)(a)(i)

Nisha Bhattacharyya, Kolkata vs. CIT(A), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 121/KOL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

read as under:- 1 Nisha Bhattacharyya (1) For that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the order passed by the CPC/Assessing Officer under section 143(1)(a)/154 of the Act and his purported findings in this regard are arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse. (2) For that the CIT(A) failed ... consider that the CPC/Assessing Officer erred in disallowing Rs.14.08,035/- under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). (3) For that the CIT(A) failed to consider that whether the said expenditure of Rs.14,08,035/- is allowable or not is a debatable

Rahul Janak Dwarkadas, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 17(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 4330/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Ashit VedFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “D” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH

K864 Murali Chennampatti Primary Agriculture Co-Op Credit Society, Erode vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Erode

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 517/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 516 & 517/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/S. K864 Murali Chennampatti The Income Tax Officer, Primary Agriculture Co-Op Vs. Ward 2(1), Credit Society, Erode. Mulari Post, Anthiyur Taluk, Erode – 638 504. Pan: Aabak 3671M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: These Appeals By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/Jcit(A),Prayagraj In Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2023-23/1058743474 (1) & 1058743723(1) Both Dated 14.12.2023. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20 Were Processed & Intimation U/S.143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Were Issued By The Asst. Director Of Income Tax, Central Ita Nos.516 &517/Chny/2024 Processing Center (Cpc), Bengaluru Vide Orders Dated 12.07.2019 & 20.09.2020 Respectively.

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, FCAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80P

statutory time limit or falls into the category of belated submissions. This process is inherently mechanical and falls squarely within the purview of Section 143(1)(a)(i) of the Act. The Central Processing Centre (CPC) is well-equipped to efficiently carry out this task. 6.8 In the present case ... flaw in the AO's decision to disallow the appellant's deduction claim under section 80P while processing the return under section 143(1) of the Act. Consequently, all the raised appeal grounds are rejected.” Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us. 7. Before us, the ld.AR for the assessee

K864 Murali Chennampatti Primary Agriculture Co-Op Credit Society, Erode vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Erode

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 516/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, FCAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80P

The Nehru Memorial Education Society, Kanhangad vs. ITO Exemptions, Kannur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 159/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmithe Nehru Memorial The Income Tax Officer Education Society (Exemptions), Kannur Lakshmi Nivas Vs. Kanhangad - 671315 Kasaragod [Pan:Aabtt0633M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 10Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Judicial

M/S. Jai Enterprises, Raipur vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangaluru

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 107/RPR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Nov 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No.107/Rpr/2021) (Assessment Year: 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

dated 17.12.2021, which in turn resulted from the order of Ld. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 11.05.2020. 2. The Grounds of Appeal raised by the assessee are as under: GROUND NO. I 1. That ... grossly erred in confirming the action of the Ld. CPC in making the disallowance under the provisions of section 143(1)(a) of the Act. He has failed to appreciate that the adjustment made was beyond the purview of the adjustments specified under section 143(1

Pradeep Kumar Dhurve, Durg vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Bhilai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 302/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 302/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pradeep Kumar Dhurve Near Pawan Kirana Store, Sangram Chowk, Prem Nagar, Sikola Bhata, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan : Aanpd6067H

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act is an incorrect claim and it can be adjusted in view of provisions of section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. The addition made by the AO is, therefore, justified and in view of these facts, the grounds of appeal ... highly debatable, therefore, the same clearly fell beyond the realm of a prima-facie adjustment under section 143(1) of the Act. The ld. A.R in order to buttress his aforesaid contention had drawn support from the following judicial pronouncements: (i) CIT Vs. M/s. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009) 185 Taxman

Bundelas Securitas and Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Bilaspur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Bilaspur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 60/RPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Nov 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 59 & 60/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 Bundelas Securities & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. L-38, Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 223 Pan : Aaccb6831H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

highly debatable, therefore, the same clearly fell beyond the realm of a prima-facie adjustment under section 143(1) of the Act. The ld. A.R in order to buttress his aforesaid contention had drawn support from the following judicial pronouncements: (i) CIT Vs. M/s. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009) 185 Taxman ... absence of Sec. 143(1)(a) being read in the above manner, i.e debatable issues cannot be adjusted by way of intimation under section 143(1)(a), would lead to arbitrary and unreasonable intimations being issued, leading to chaos. In fact, I find that the aforesaid issue in hand

Bundelas Securitas and Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Bilaspur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Bilaspur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 59/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

Padma Dhurway, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

ITA 272/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 272/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Padma Dhurway, Near Pawan Kirana Store, Sangram Chowk, Prem Nagar, Sikola Bhata, Durg (C.G.)-491 001. Pan : Aarpd5814C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Lal Babu Pandey, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Gurgaon

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 275/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: C. A

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234BSection 234CSection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

against the assessee without issuing any prior intimation/show cause notice and without following the mandatory procedure given in Proviso 1 to section 143(1)thus the adjustment of Rs.31,81,554/- made in the intimation is bad in law and deserves to be deleted in full. 2. That with ... response/the response given is not acceptable, the adjustment(s) as mentioned below are being made to the total income as per provisions of section 143(1)(a)", and has not even struck off the portion inapplicable, without appreciating the fact that intimation u/s.143(1) is an appealable order thus failure

Lal Babu Pandey, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward 1(4), Gurgaon

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1232/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: C. A

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234BSection 234CSection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

M/S Varsma Engineers Group, 656, Vijay Nagar, Damoh Road, Jabalpur vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1), Jabalpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 90/JAB/2022[2022-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur11 Sept 2023AY 2022-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Varsma Engineers Vs Asst. Director Of Group, 656, Vijay Nagar, Income Tax, Cpc, Damoh Road, Jabalpur (M.P.) Bengaluru. Acit, Circle-1(1), Jabalpur. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaefv7885Q Assessee By Shri H.S.Modh, Adv. Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11/09/2023 O R D E R Per Om Prakash Kant, A.M.: The Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.10.2022 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“In Short The Ld.Cit(A)”] For Assessment Year 2020-21, Raising Following Grounds:-

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

Bhuneshwar Prasad Sahu, Baloda Bazar, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Bhatapara, Bhatapara

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed in terms of our observations above

ITA 109/RPR/2023[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Raipur04 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.109/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Bhuneshwar Prasad Sahu Main Road, Raseda, Baloda Bazar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Bayps7721N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Khapradih, Bhatapara ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

automatically attracted. The AO CPC has, in my humble view, acted in accordance with provisions of section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act and the adjustment made by the AO CPC in the order u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act is found justified and as per the relevant ... highly debatable, therefore, the same clearly fell beyond the realm of a prima-facie adjustment under section 143(1) of the Act. The ld. A.R in order to buttress his aforesaid contention had drawn support from the following judicial pronouncements: (i) CIT Vs. M/s. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009) 185 Taxman

Vaibhav Global Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 96/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl.CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

disallowing the Employees Contribution to PF of Rs.86,97,076/- u/s 143(1) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) which is beyong the scope of Section 143(1). The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted ... made without giving intimation u/s 143(1)(a)…………… 7.2 The appellant has claimed that the action of CPC is beyond the scope of section 143(1) on the issue of disallowance made u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. The claim of the assessee is misplaced in view

Shree Mangrol Vanik Dasha Shrimali Gnati Shapur Darwaja, Mangroal-362225 vs. The ITO (Exmption) Ward-2, Rajkot

In the result, the order passed by Ld

ITA 56/RJT/2023[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot16 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri G.R. Sanghavi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.L. Solanki, Sr. D.R

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

under section 12A of the Act and offered tax at normal rate as applicable to individual/non-specific trust. Thereafter, the assessee received information under section 143(1) dated 04-03-2014 vide which the assessee was sought to be taxed on gross income of " 6,47,480/-. In the said intimation ... Appeals), the assessee submitted that the adjustment made u/s 143(1) of the Act does not fall within the ambit of either section 143(1)(a)(i) or (ii), since disallowance I.T.A No. 56/Rjt/2023 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 3 Shree Mangrol Vanik Dasha Shrimali Gnati Shapur Darwaja

Beckhaul Digital Technologies Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 97/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Mrs. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

applicable to the present case. 6.27 With respect to the alternate ground that the phrase increase income has been added to the Section 143(1)(a)(iv) vide Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 1-04-2021 i.e. A.Y. 2021-22, hence right to increase in come u/s 143(1 ... case laws praying mainly therein that AO has grossly erred in deciding the disallowance made u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act in Section 143(1)(a). To this effect, the detailed written submission of the ld. AR of the assessee is reproduced as under:- GROUND NO. 1A: ADDITION MADE

Sun Enterprises, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir.2(1)(1)/ Dy.CIT Central Processing Centre (CPC), Surat/Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 162/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.162/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sun Enterprises Deputy Commissioner Of Income Shed No.C1B/156, Ichhapore- Tax Central Processing Centre Vs. Bhatpore Industrial Estate, Hajira, (Cpc),Bengaluru-560100 Surat-394207 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aayfs 4971J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ) (""थ" /Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Assessing Officer (Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru) in making adjustment u/s 143(1) although the same adjustment does not fall within the ambit of section 143(1)(a)(i) to 143(1)(a)(vi). 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject

Satpal Singh Sandhu, Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 4/RPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 04/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Satpal Singh Sandhu 151/2, Ward -1, Sandhu Bhavan, Guru Govind Singh Marg, Heerapur, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Cseps7315E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)

Satpal Singh Sandhu Vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur the same clearly fell beyond the realm of a prima-facie adjustment under section 143(1) of the Act. The ld. A.R in order to buttress his aforesaid contention had drawn support from the following judicial pronouncements ... absence of Sec. 143(1)(a) being read in the above manner, i.e debatable issues cannot be adjusted by way of intimation under section 143(1)(a), would lead to arbitrary and unreasonable intimations being issued, leading to chaos. In fact, I find that the aforesaid issue in hand

Himanshu Gupta, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-6(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 253/JPR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Shivangi Samdhani,CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 10(16)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154

adjustment and intimation u/s 143(1) of Income Tax Act on debtable and controversial issue is beyond the scope of Section 143(1) of Income Tax Act. Revenue was clearly in error in making the aforesaid adjustments..’’ Further reliance has been placed on the decision of Coordinate Bench of ITAT ... relevant extract is as under:- 4 HIMANSHU GUPTA VS ITO, WARD 6(1), JAIPUR ‘’6…… Coming to the mechanism of application of section 143(1), we find that the first proviso to section 143 (1) mandates that "no such adjustments shall be made unless an intimation is given