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

2010 Supreme(Mad) 3574

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. NAGAMUTHU
Tamil Nadu Magnesite Ltd.,
Versus
The Commissioner of Income-Tax, & Another
W.P.No.17819 of 2001
Decided On : 19-08-2010

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:R. Venkatanarayanan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: J. Naresh Kumar, Senior Standing Counsel (Income Tax).

Once an assessment order is made under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, no rectification order under Section 154 could be passed to rectify the intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act.

Headnote:

Rectification - Income Tax - Section 154, Section 143(1)(a), Section 143(3) - The court discussed the applicability of Section 154 of the Income Tax Act to rectify the intimation given under Section 143(1)(a) after a final assessment order under Section 143(3) has been passed. The court considered the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Kolkatta High Court, emphasizing that once an assessment order is made under Section 143(3) preceded by a notice under Section 143(2), there is no scope to proceed under Section 143(1)(a) for rectification.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a Government of Tamil Nadu undertaking, submitted a tax return admitting Nil income for the accounting year. The return was accepted under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. Subsequently, a notice under Section 143(2) was issued, and a revised return was filed. The scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) was completed. Later, a notice under Section 154 was issued to rectify the original intimation, leading to additional income tax. The petitioner challenged this through a writ petition.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that after an order is passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, no rectification order under Section 154 could be passed to rectify the intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. The rectification was held to be without jurisdiction, and the impugned order was set aside.

Issues: The main issue was whether an order of rectification under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act could be passed to rectify the intimation given under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act after a final assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act has been passed.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the provisions of Section 154, Section 143(1)(a), and Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing that once an assessment order is made under Section 143(3) preceded by a notice under Section 143(2), there is no scope to proceed under Section 143(1)(a) for rectification.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.

Judgment :-

1. The short question which arises for consideration is, “whether an order of rectification under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act could be passed to rectify the intimation given under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act, after a final assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act has been passed.”

2. The petitioner is a Government of Tamil Nadu undertaking. It is an income tax assessee. For the accounting year ended with 31.03.1993, the petitioner submitted the tax return admitting Nil income. The said return was accepted by the second respondent on 07.03.1994 by issuance of an intimation in terms of Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, the second respondent issued a notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act on 31.03.1994. The petitioner later on filed a revised return of the income on 04.07.1995 wherein, the deduction originally claimed for the provisions created for bonus and gratuity was reversed. The second respondent acting on the revised return, completed the scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act on 22.11.1995.

3. While so, later on, the second respondent issued a notice under Section 154 of the Act, with a view to rectify the original intimation dated 07.03.1994 issued under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. The petitioner objected to the same. Rejecting the said objection, the second respondent passed an order of rectification on 14.12.1998 thereby levying an additional income tax to the tune of Rs.4,70,346/-. Aggrieved over the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision under Section 264 of the Act to the first respondent. The said revision was also dismissed. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that if there had been no notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, then, within the period of limitation of four years, the intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act can be amended by the Assessing Authority under Section 154 of the Act. But, if once, after the said intimation, a notice is issued under Section 143(2) of the Act and an assessment order is passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, the intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act merges with the order under Section 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, after such merger, Section 143(1) (a) of the Act does not survive for rectification under Section 154 of the Act.

5. But the learned Senior Standing Counsel (Income Tax) appearing for the respondents would submit that there is no legal impediment for the Assessing Authority to invoke his jurisdiction under Section 154 of the Act to rectify the intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act notwithstanding the fact that subsequent to the said proceeding, a final assessment order has been passed under Section 143(3) of the Act.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gujarat Electricity Board (2003 ITR (Vol.260) 84) wherein, it has been held as follows:-

“Even otherwise, the view taken by the Gujarat High Court seems to be correct on principle. There is no dispute that section 143(1)(a) of the Act enacts a summary procedure for quick collection of tax and quick refunds. Under the scheme if there is a serious objection to any of the orders made by the Assessment Officer determining the income, it is open to the assessee to ask for rectification under Section 154. Apart therefrom, the provisions of section 143(1)(a) indicate that the intimation sent under section 143(1)(a) shall be without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (2). The Legislature, therefore, intended that, where the summary procedure under sub-section (1) has been adopted, there should be scope available for the Revenue, either suo motu or at the instance of the assessee to make a regular assessment under sub-section (2) of section 143. The converse is not available; a regular assessment proceeding having been commenced










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
whatsapp-icon Back to top