Calcutta High Court
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Coventry Spring And Co. Ltd. on 9 July, 2002
Equivalent citations: [2002]257ITR632(CAL)
Author: Indira Banerjee
Bench: Indira Banerjee
JUDGMENT
1. The question before us is as follows :
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that intimation issued under Section 143(1)(a) cannot be rectified under Section 154 after issue of notice under Section 143(2) ?"
2. After the Assessing Officer issues intimation (under the old law then prevailing) under Section 143(1)(a), it is possible that both the Assessing Officer and the assessee pay nothing and the matter rests there.
3. However, it was possible for the Assessing Officer to issue a subsequent notice under Section 143(2) and to hear the assessee further before finalising the assessment.
4. However, the rectification procedure under Section 154 is not consistent with the issuance of a Section 143(2) notice. In this case apparently the Assessing Officer passed the order of regular assessment on the same day as he sought to pass an order under Section 154 rectifying his initial intimation under Section 143(1)(a).
5. No fewer than three High Courts have frowned upon this type of double rectification and we, with respect, find ourselves in complete agreement with their Lordships' views. The cases are as follows :
(1) CIT v. Arihant Industries ltd. ;
(2) Gujarat Poly-Avx Electronics Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Assessment) ; and (3) CIT v. Punjab National Bank [2001] 249 ITR 763 (Delhi).
6. Accordingly the question is answered in favour of the assessee and in the affirmative.