Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corpn. of U.P. Ltd.

Heard Sri D.D. Chopra and S.C. Misra, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Amit Shukla, the learned Counsel for the respondent.

By means of present appeal filed u/s 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 7-5-2003 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal passed in Income Tax Appeal No. 929/A11./1996 for the assessment year 1994-95 involving following substantial question of law:

(a) Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow was, in law, was justified in holding that in a case where processing u/s 143(1) has been finalized before the date of issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, any rectification of that intimation cannot be made u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ignoring the law that the provisions of Section 154 run independent of the Sections 143(1) and 143(3) and making of such rectification is binding upon the Assessing Officer once the mistake comes in his knowledge either by assessee or suo motu?

Sri Amit Shukla, the learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the judgment and order passed by this Court in CIT v. Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation of U.P. Ltd. IT Appeal No. 45 of 2003, dated 3-2-2010 in which this Court has held : the Assessing Officer u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act had issued notice for rectification of the intimation issued earlier u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. It was done after issuance of the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. The submission of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the Assessing Officer was authorised to issue notice for rectification. However, attention of the Court has been invited to the judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gujarat Electricity Board, Their Lordships while affirming decision of Gujarat High Court held that intimation for rectification of original notice issued u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act cannot be issued. The operative portion of the judgment of Gujarat Electricity Board''s case (supra) is being reproduced :

Even otherwise, the view taken by the Gujarat High Court seems to be correct on principle. There is no dispute that Section 143A(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 Assessing Officer determining the income, it is open to the assessee to ask for rectification u/s 154. Apart therefrom the provisions of Section 143(1)(a)(i) indicate that the intimation sent u/s 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 u/s 143(2), there is no need for a summary proceeding u/s 143(1)(i).

In view of the settled position of law, the appeal lacks merit. The judgment of the Tribunal is affirmed.

Sri D.D. Chopra, the learned Counsel for the appellant admits that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.