Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2022 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 224 - TELANGANA HIGH COURTIntimation u/s 143(1)(a) - Adjustment of interest on deposits by the respondent/assessee at the stage of issuance of intimation u/s 143(1)(a) - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) held that in the guise of prima facie adjustment, assessing officer cannot adjudicate upon debatable issues. CIT(A) noted that the decision of this Court in Godavari Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited [1991 (6) TMI 13 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] on which heavy reliance is placed by the revenue was appealed against before the Supreme Court and the appeal was pending. CIT(A) held that the issue was highly debatable on which two opinions were clearly possible and on such a highly debatable issue, prima facie adjustment ought not to have been carried out by the assessing officer. Taking the view that interest payments sought to be set off against interest receipts having the same origin namely borrowed funds, CIT(A) set aside the prima facie adjustment made by the assessing officer. Tribunal held that order passed by the CIT(A) was a well reasoned one which did not warrant interference in further appeal. Tribunal further noted that decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Tuticorn Alkaline Chemicals and Fertilisers Ltd. [1997 (7) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT] was not available at the time of making prima facie adjustment by the assessing officer. Supreme Court had pronounced the decision in CIT v. Tuticorn Alkaline Chemicals and Fertilisers Ltd. (supra) on 08.07.1997 whereas the intimation was issued by the Assessing Officer much earlier on 27.03.1996. Adjustment can be carried out u/s 143(1)(a) - The prima facie adjustment sought to be carried out by the assessing officer in the instant case does not fall within any of the illustrations mentioned above. We do not find any error or infirmity in the view taken by the CIT(A) as affirmed by the Tribunal. That being the position, the substantial question of law as framed above, is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the respondent.
|