Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

17. On the other hand learned Authorised Representative Mr. B.R. Popat argued that the original return of income was furnished on 30th Oct., 2001, disclosing the total income at Rs. 1,39,829. As such, the assessee was legally permitted to revise his return of income latest by 31st March, 2003 or before completion of the assessment year, whichever is earlier. It was further submitted that the assessment of the case was completed as late as on 26th March, 2004, whereas the return of income furnished originally was revised on 31st Oct., 2002. It was thus a validly revised return of income, and cannot be ignored or objected on this ground. As per learned Authorised Representative, the return of income having been revised after the original return was processed under Section 143(1), the processing of the return of income is merely a clerical act on the part of the Department and the same cannot, therefore, be treated as assessment, within the meaning of what has been specified in Section 139(5). In support of this, it was further argued by the Authorised Representative that prior to 1st June, 1999, Section 143(1)(a) of the IT Act expressly permitted the AO to carry out certain adjustments, as specified at the first proviso to that section, at the very stage of processing the return of income, so as to practically re-calculate the Income or the loss declared by the assessee, without subjecting the return to the scrutiny. Despite the fact that the AO could make several specified adjustments in the return of income so furnished, Courts have held that such an order or the intimation passed under Section 143(1)(a) could not be treated as an assessment. Reliance was placed on Pradeep Kumar Har Saran Lal v. AO , Peico Electronics & Electricals Ltd. and Anr. v. Dy. CIT , Apogee International Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr. , Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. v. Chairman, CBDT and Anr. , Gujarat Poly-Avx Electronics Ltd. v. Dy. CIT and Lakhanpal National Ltd. v. Dy. CIT in this regard.

18. We have considered the rival contentions carefully, gone through the orders of authorities below and also deliberated on the case laws cited by the learned Authorised Representative and Departmental Representative at Bar in the factual matrix of the case. From the record we find that the original return of income was furnished on 30th Oct., 2001, disclosing the total income at Rs. 1,39,829. As such, the assesses was legally entitled to revise his return of income latest by 31st March, 2003 or before completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier. In the instant case, the assessment of the case was completed as late as on 26th March, 2004, whereas the return of income furnished originally was revised on 31st Oct., 2002. It was thus a validly revised return of income, and cannot be ignored or objected on this ground. So far as Departmental Representative's argument of filing of return after the original return was processed under Section 143(1), we are of the considered opinion that by the Finance Act 1999, w.e.f. 1st June, 1999, Section 143(1)(a) has been substituted by the new Section 143(1), whereby the powers of the AOs have been further restricted so as not to allow them even to carry out the prima facie adjustments while processing the return of income. Thus, when even the order or the intimation under Section 143(1)(a) is not being treated as an assessment, processing of the return of income under Section 143(1) could not be treated as an assessment either and the mere fact of the return of income having been already processed cannot disentitle the assessee from furnishing the revised return of income, within the otherwise prescribed time-limit. Jurisdictional High Court in the case of S.R. Koshti v. CIT clearly held that intimation issued under Section 143(1) for the asst. yr. 2001-02, is not an order of assessment and a revised return can be filed even after issue of intimation under Section 143(1). Furthermore, it is only under two circumstances, as specified under Section 143(1)(i) and Section 143(1)(ii) that the AO is retired to send the intimation of the order under Section 143(1) to the assessee. In all other situations, it has been provided in the first proviso to Section 143(1) itself that the acknowledgement of the return of income shall be deemed to be an intimation under this sub-section where either no sum is payable by the assessee or no refund is due to him.