Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (3.93 seconds)Section 115BBF in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Setron Synthetics Pvt. Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 29 March, 2022
9. The above finding has not been challenged by the Revenue. Further,
there is nothing on record to controvert the same. The Learned CIT(A)
has recorded that no intimation was issued to the Assessee before
making the adjustment under Section 143(1) of the Act. Further, no
reason has been provided for the adjustment made. We have already
noted hereinabove that in the case of Kalpesh Synthetics Pvt. Ltd.
(supra) the Tribunal had held that it is mandatory for Assessing Officer
Union Public Service Commission vs Bibhu Prasad Sarangi on 5 March, 2021
It is important to bear in
mind the fact that intimation under section 143(1) is an appealable
order, and when consideration of objections raised by the assessee
is an integral part of the process of finalizing the intimation under
section 143(1) unless the reasons for such rejection are known, a
meaningful appellate exercise can hardly be carried out. When the
5
ITA No.8536/Mum/2025
Assessment Year 2024-2025
first appellate authority has no clue about the reasons which
prevailed with the Assessing Officer- CPC, in rejecting the
submissions of the assessee, because no such reasons are
indicated by the Assessing Officer CPC anyway, it is difficult to
understand on what basis the first appellate authority sits in
judgment over correctness or otherwise of such a rejection of
submissions. Whether the statute specifically provides for it or not,
in our considered view, the need for disposal of objections by way
of a speaking order has to be read into it as the Assessing Officer
CPC, while disposing of the objections raised by the assessee, is
performing a quasi judicial function, and the soul of a quasi
judicial decision making is in the reasoning for coming to the
decision taken by the quasi judicial officer. While on this aspect of
the matter, we may usefully refer to the observations made by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Union Public Service
Commission v. Bibhu Prasad Sarangi [2021] 4 SCC 516. While
these observations are in the context of the judicial officers, these
observations will be equally applicable to the decisions by the quasi
judicial officers like us as indeed the Assessing Officer CPC. In the
inimitable words of Hon'ble Justice Chandrachud, Hon'ble Supreme
Court has made the following observations:
Genpact India Private Limited vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 22 November, 2019
- CPC to give intimation to the assessee in terms of First Proviso to
Section 143(1) of the Act before making the adjustment; and it is also
mandatory for the Assessing Officer - CPC to give reasons for making
the adjustment. Since in the present case both are absent, respectfully
following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kalpesh Synthetics
7
ITA No.8536/Mum/2025
Assessment Year 2024-2025
Pvt. Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2022] 137
taxmann.com 475 (Mumbai - Trib.), we set aside the Intimation Order,
dated 17/01/2025, passed under Section 143(1) of the Act. As a result,
the additional demand raised upon the Assessee vide Intimation Order,
dated 17/01/2025, stands deleted. Thus, Ground No. 2 raised by the
Assessee is allowed.
1