IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
M/s. The Cuddalore District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Respondent
W.P. No. 20049 of 2018 and W.M.P. No. 23513 of 2018
Decided On : 14-06-2021
Section 154 - Income Tax Notice - 154, 143(3), 147, 142(1), 264 - The court discussed the scope of Section 154 of the Income Tax Act and emphasized that it can only be invoked to rectify a mistake apparent from the record. The judgment highlighted key legal provisions and their interpretations, emphasizing that Section 154 cannot be used to re-adjudicate facts on merits or to decide disputable issues.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged a notice issued under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, claiming that the case did not fall within the scope of Section 154 and the notice was unsustainable. The petitioner had filed a reply to the notice in writing.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent had not gone beyond the scope of Section 154 and had taken steps to rectify the mistake apparent from the record. The nature of the mistake apparent from the record was also furnished in the impugned notice.
Issues: The main issue was whether the notice issued under Section 154 was sustainable and whether the case fell within the scope of Section 154 of the Income Tax Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that Section 154 can only be invoked to rectify a mistake apparent from the record and cannot be used to re-adjudicate facts on merits or to decide disputable issues.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was given the liberty to participate in the Section 154 proceedings and defend their case by availing opportunities provided by the Authorities. The court also stated that if the petitioner was aggrieved by the final orders, they could prefer an appeal under the provisions of the Act.
ORDER :
The Notice issued under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is under challenge in the writ on hand.
2. The impugned notice reveals that the Assessment Order under Section 143 (3) r/w Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, dated 27.02.2015 for the Assessment Year 2011 – 12 requires to be amended, as there is a mistake apparent from the record within the meaning of Section 154 of Income Tax Act, 1961. Thus the Authority Competent, in order to provide an opportunity to the petitioner, issued a notice fixing the date and time for personal hearing i.e., 09.07.2018 at 11.00 AM. The petitioner had not chosen to appear in person before the respondent, but has chosen to file the present writ petition mainly on the ground that the case of the petitioner is not falling within the scope of Section 154 of Income Tax Act and thus the respondent has no jurisdiction to issue notice and consequently, the impugned notice is liable to be set aside. However, the fact remains that the writ petitioner filed a reply to the notice in writing on 09.07.2018.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner strenuously contended that the case on hand is a classic case, where there is an error apparent on exercise of jurisdiction by the respondent under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act. Further the respondent has not considered the facts and circumstances as well as the points raised in the reply by the petitioner for initiation of Rectification Proceedings under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act. The entire exercise is done beyond the scope of the provision under Section 154 of the Act and thus the impugned order is unsustainable.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner solicited the attention of this Court with reference to the notice issued under Section 142 (1) of the Income Tax Act on 27.01.2015 of the annexure to the said order states that specific reply is given to the each of the queries and furnish details. Item 19 and 20 reveals that as per Provisional Statement of Total Income, it is noticed that the petitioner has claimed deductions in respect of provision for bad and doubtful debts under Section 36 (1) (viia). Item 20 states that the nature and basis for claiming exemption of Rs.13,03,558.90 as “TN Govt.Waiver u/s.36 (1) (viia) and further it states that explain whether this outstanding amount belongs to any rural branch. If so, which branch?
5. It is contended that the assessee clarified all these queries and substantially submitted materials to prove their claims in the order passed under Section 143 (3) read with Section 147 of Income Tax Act, dated 27.02.2015. The assessee claimed deductions in their return of income under Section 36 (1) (viia). In the said order, the Authorities considered all these facts and finally accepted the return of assessed income and thereafter the petitioner filed a petition under Section 154 of the Income tax Act, 1961 on 12.03.2015. Even in that petition, all these factors were brought to the notice of the Income Tax Authorities. The Authorities in proceedings dated 25.08.2015, carefully considered the assessee's petition with regard to the assessee's claim in respect of reserve created for overdue interest added to the total income returned. The petitioner further contends that in order dated 30.03.2017, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Puducherry, made a representation of assessment under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act and the operative portion of the order reads as under:
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.