Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (1.05 seconds)Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Coventry Spring And Co. Ltd. on 9 July, 2002
(1) CIT v. Arihant Industries ltd. ;
Jain Metal Components vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 30 April, 2004
The same view was taken by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Arihant Industries Ltd. (2002) 255 ITR 458 (P&H). Apart from these judgments, various other judgments relied upon by the learned counsel also support the case of the assessee. Although these judgments deal with cases where original returns were processed under Section 143(1)(a) and not the cases where the assessee had filed revised returns and such returns were processed under Section 143(1B), but those decisions would equally apply to the cases where revised returns were processed under Section 143(1B). In such cases also where AO had already issued a notice under Section 143(2), revised return cannot be processed under Section 143(1B) r/w Section 143(1)(a). In the light of these facts, we are of the considered opinion that the learned CIT(A) was in error in not deciding this issue on merits and dismissing the appeal simply because subsequently the AO had completed the assessment under Section 143(3). The question still remains whether the AO could have made the impugned adjustments after issue of notice under Section 143(2), which, in our opinion, was not valid in view of various judgments cited above.
1