SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1993 Supreme(Raj) 447

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
M.B.Sharma, J.
Rajasthan State Electricity Board - Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner of Income - Respondent
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2267 of 1992.
Decided On : 19-01-1993

Additional tax under section 143(1A)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, can be charged only if, as a result of adjustments, the total income exceeds the one declared in the return. In case of loss, additional tax cannot be charged.

Headnote:

INCOME TAX - Levy of additional tax under section 143(1A)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Interpretation of section 143(1) and (1A) - Held, additional tax can be charged only if, as a result of adjustments, the total income exceeds the one declared in the return - In case of loss, additional tax cannot be charged.

Fact of the Case:

The Rajasthan State Electricity Board (RSEB) challenged the levy of additional tax under section 143(1A)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, claiming it was illegal and unauthorized. RSEB filed its return showing a loss and claimed depreciation. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax issued an intimation demanding additional tax, which was revised later. RSEB filed objections and revision petitions, but they were not disposed of.

Finding of the Court:

The court interpreted sections 143(1) and (1A) of the Income-tax Act. It held that additional tax under section 143(1A)(a) can be charged only if, as a result of adjustments, the total income exceeds the one declared in the return. In case of loss, additional tax cannot be charged.

Issues: Whether additional tax can be charged under section 143(1A)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, even in cases where a loss is declared in the return.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the plain reading of section 143(1A)(a) and held that it clearly indicates that, as a result of the adjustments made, there should be a demand of tax and it is in addition to this tax that 20 per cent. of the tax payable on the excess amount is also chargeable. The court also distinguished the case from section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, which deals with penalty for concealment of income.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the levy and imposition of additional tax under section 143(1A)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as well as the intimation demanding such tax.

JUDGMENT

1. - The Rajasthan State Electricity Board (for short, "the RSEB"), the petitioner herein, has challenged the levy and imposition of additional tax under section 143(1A)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act"), and the consequent issuance of intimation dated February 12, 1992, amended on February 28, 1992, and the demand of Rs. 7,67,68,717, being illegal, unauthorised and in violation of the principles of natural justice, as null and void and has sought a writ of certiorari quashing the aforesaid demand.

2. The RSEB submitted its return of income on December 30, 1991, for the financial year 1990-91 relevant to the assessment year 1991-92. In the said return, it has shown a loss of Rs. 4,27,39,32,972. For the aforesaid assessment year, the RSEB suffered a loss as per revenue account amounting to Rs. 1,68,39,37,000. It also claimed depreciation of Rs. 3,33,77,70,317 and, after disallowing inadmissible expenditure, the aforesaid total loss was shown in the return filed as aforesaid. An intimation under section 143(1A)(a) of the Income-tax Act was issued to the RSEB by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment), Special Range-II, Jaipur, dated February 12, 1992, in which the additional tax under section 143(1A) was claimed amounting to Rs. 8,63,64,827. The RSEB filed objections and thereafter the said order was revised and the additional tax was reduced to Rs. 7,67,68,717.

3. An application under section 154 of the Income-tax Act for rectification was filed by the RSEB and a revision petition under section 264 of the Income-tax Act was also filed. But, according to the RSEB, they have not been disposed of. It has been submitted that the demand is illegal and cannot be sustained being without jurisdiction and, therefore, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. The question primarily depends on the interpretation of section 143(1) and (lA) of the Income-tax Act. It will be proper to read the aforesaid provision which is as under :

"143.(1)(a) Where a return has been made under section 139, or in response to a notice under subsection (1) of section 142,-

(i) if any tax or interest is found due on the basis of such return, after adjustment of any tax deducted at source, any advance tax paid and any amount paid otherwise by way of tax or interest, then, without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (2), an intimation shall be sent to the assessee specifying the sum so payable, and such intimation shall be deemed to be a notice of demand issued under section 156 and all the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly ; and

(ii) if any refund is due on the basis of such return, it shall be granted to the assessee :

Provided that in computing the tax or interest payable by, or refundable to, the assessee, the following adjustments shall be made in the income or loss declared in the return, namely:-

(i) any arithmetical errors in the return, accounts or documents accompanying it shall be rectified ;

(ii) any loss carried forward, deduction, allowance or relief, which, on the basis of the information available in such return, accounts or documents, is prima facie admissible but which is not claimed in the return, shall be allowed ;

(iii) any loss carried forward, deduction, allowance or relief claimed in the return, which, on the basis of the information available in such return, accounts or documents, is prima facie inadmissible, shall be disallowed :

Provided further that where adjustments are made under the first proviso, an intimation shall be sent to the assessee, notwithstanding that no tax or interest is found due from him after making the said adjustments :

Provided also that an intimation for any tax or interest due under this clause shall not be sent after the expiry of two years from the end of the assessment year in which the income was first assessable.

(b) Where as a result of an order made under sub-section (3) of this section or section-144 or section 147 or section 154 or section 155 or sectio






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top