Commissioner of Income Tax vs Nicco Corporation Ltd.

We have heard Mr. Khaitan. We have also perused the records placed before us. It appears that there is delay of only 98 days in filing this application. Mr. Khaitan did not join issue in this matter. In our considered opinion sufficient cause has been shown in this application to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and the appeal be registered accordingly.

Heard Mr. Khaitan. Perused the petition. It appears that the point was already dealt with by our Division Bench in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Coventry Spring and Co. Ltd., . The question which was decided was:

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in holding that intimation issued u/s 143(1)(a) cannot be rectified u/s 154 after issue of notice u/s 143(2) ?

It appears that the Division Bench came to the conclusion that it was possible for the assessing officer to issue a subsequent notice u/s 143(2) and to hear the assessee further before finalizing the assessment. The court also held that the rectification procedure u/s 154 is not consistent with the issuance of a Section 143(2) notice and on the given facts it came to the conclusion that the assessing officer passed an order of regular assessment on the same day as he sought to pass an order u/s 154 rectifying his initial intimation u/s 143(1) (a) and the Division Bench held in favour of the assessee and answered the question in the affirmative.

This order was passed relying upon a decision of the Gujarat High Court in Gujarat Poly-Avx Electronics Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, . It appears from the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gujarat Electricity Board, ), the Hon''ble Supreme Court after taking into account the decision of the Gujarat High Court approved the said decision and held in favour of the assessee.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court held "....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 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) 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 sua 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)(a).

We do not find that there is any reason to interfere with the order so passed by the Tribunal or to admit the same. Hence the appeal is dismissed.