Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. Mr. R.L. Jain, learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant, submitted that the Tribunal has taken an erroneous view that an intimation issued under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act partakes the character of an assessment if no action is taken within the prescribed period for framing regular assessment. He cited the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Kamal Textiles and Ors. v. ITO and Ors. , the decision of Delhi High Court in Apogee International Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr. and the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Pradeep Kumar Har Saran Led v. AO in support of his contention that the intimation sent under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act was not an assessment. He submitted that since the intimation dt. 17th Oct., 1994 sent to the respondent on the original return dt. 29th July, 1994 was not an assessment, the revised return filed by the respondent on 31st Aug., 1995 was a valid return under Section 139(5) of the Act. He submitted that the view taken by the Tribunal that the revised return filed by the respondent was not a valid revised return after the intimation dt. 17th Oct., 1994 had partaken the character of an assessment, is not correct. He cited the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Chief CIT (Administration) and Anr. v. Machine Tool Corporation of India Ltd. , for the proposition that once the revised return is filed under Section 139(5) of the Act, the original return is substituted by the revised return. He argued that the limitation in the proviso to Section 143(2) of the Act will have to be with reference to the revised return and not to the original return, which stood substituted by the revised return and the notice dt. 19th April, 1996 issued under Section 143(2) of the Act is, therefore, within the period of twelve months from the end of the month in which the revised return was furnished. He submitted that the view taken by the Tribunal that the assessment was not a valid assessment and deserves to be annulled is therefore, not correct.

8. Mr. P.M. Choudhary, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that an intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act may not be an assessment and the AO may initiate assessment proceedings even after such intimation by issuing a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act to the assessee. But once the limitation period as prescribed in the proviso to Section 143(2) of the Act expires without issue of a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act to the assessee, the intimation partakes the character of an assessment and becomes final and this is what the Tribunal has held in the impugned order. He cited the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Punjab Tractors Ltd. v. Jt CIT in which it has been held that the intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act operates as an order of assessment unless the authority proceeds to issue notice under Section 143(2) of the Act and passes an order under Section 143 of the Act. He also relied on the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Vipan Khanna v. CIT and Ors. in support of his submissions that a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act cannot be served on the assessee after expiry of twelve months from the end of the month in which return is furnished and that in such a case the assessment proceedings under Section 143 of the Act come to an end and the matter becomes final. He also cited the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Panchmahal Steel Ltd. v. U.A. Joshi, ITO and Ors. wherein the Gujarat High Court has held that no revised return can be filed by the assessee after the ITO makes a draft order of assessment under Section 144B of the Act because under Section 139(5) of the Act a revised return cannot be filed after completion of the assessment. He submitted that since no notice was issued in the present case to the respondent under Section 143(2) of the Act within the period of one year from the end of July, 1994 in the month in which the original return was filed, the intimation dt. 17th Oct., 1994 operated as an assessment and had become final and hence the revised return filed on 31st Aug., 1995 by the respondent was not a valid revised return under Section 139(5) of the Act and the assessment made on the basis of revised return was invalid and had to be annulled. According to him, the Tribunal was right in taking the view that the assessment was an invalid assessment.

18. In Panchmahal Steel Ltd. (supra) on which the Tribunal has relied upon, before the revised return was filed, a draft order of assessment under Section 144B of the Act had been prepared by the ITO and the Gujarat High Court in the said judgment has held that since assessment had been completed, the revised return filed after the completion of assessment was not a valid revised return under Sub-section (5) of Section 139. But, in the present case, as we have seen, the assessment process had not been initiated at all under Sub-section (2) of Section 143 and no assessment had been made under Sub-section (1) of Section 143 and, therefore, the revised return filed by the respondent was a valid revised return under Sub-section (5) of Section 139 of the Act.

19. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal in the impugned order that an intimation under Sub-section (1)(a) of Section 143 of the Act to the assessee partakes the character of an assessment, if no action is taken to issue notice under Sub-section (2) of Section 143 to the assessee within the period of twelve months contemplated therein, is wholly erroneous in law. In our considered opinion, the intimation dt. 17th Oct., 1994 did not partake the character of regular assessment on completion of the period of twelve months contemplated under Sub-section (2) of Section 143 of the Act even if no notice was served on the respondent under the said Sub-section during the said period of 12 months. Since no assessment was made pursuant to the original return, the respondent could file a revised return under Sub-section (5) of Section 139 of the Act at any time before expiry of one year from the end of relevant asst. yr. 1994-95, i.e., before 31st March, 1996 and as the revised return was filed by the respondent on 31st Aug., 1995 it was a valid revised return under Sub-section (5) of Section 139 of the Act and the assessment made pursuant to the said revised return by the AO was a valid assessment. The conclusions of the Tribunal that the revised return was invalid in law and the assessment made on the basis of such a revised return was also invalid in law, are thus incorrect in law.