Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 1260 - AT - Income TaxDelayed employees’ contribution to ESI/Provident Fund - sum deposited by the assessee after the specified date prescribed under laws providing ESI/Provident Fund but before due date of filing of return of Income Tax prescribed u/s 139(1) - adjustments and intimation u/s 143(1) - HELD THAT:- It is well settled that any adjustments u/s 143(1) of Income Tax Act by way of intimation u/s 143(1) of Income Tax Act, on debatable and controversial issues, is beyond the scope of Section 143(1) of Income Tax Act. In this regard, we respectfully mention the order of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of ACIT vs. Haryana Telecom Pvt. Ltd. [2009 (5) TMI 607 - ITAT DELHI] Revenue should have given due consideration to the fact that the issue was highly debatable and controversial. As already discussed earlier, adjustments u/s 143(1) of Income Tax Act by way of intimation u/s 143(1) of Income Tax Act, on debatable and controversial issues, is beyond the scope of section 143(1) of Income Tax Act. Revenue was clearly in error, in making the aforesaid adjustments u/s 143(1) of Income Tax Act on 25.11.2019 on a debatable and controversial issue. We would like to make respectful mention of order of Jabalpur Bench of ITAT in the case of Nikhil Mohine[2021 (11) TMI 927 - ITAT JABALPUR] in which similar view has been taken. Further, it is also well settled that retrospective amendment cannot be invoked to make addition by way of adjustment and intimation u/s 143(1) of Income Tax Act. This view was taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd. [2000 (3) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] in which the view of Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Modern Fibotex India Ltd. & Anr.[1994 (3) TMI 17 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] was approved. Same view was taken by the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Satish Traders [2000 (9) TMI 51 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] We are of the view that the aforesaid additions by way of adjustment and intimation u/s 143(1) of Income Tax Act, were beyond the scope of Section 143(1) of Income Tax Act; and further, that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in confirming the aforesaid addition on a debatable and controversial issue - Decided in favour of assessee.
|