Processing Intimation under section 143(1) of Income Tax Act without giving 30 days time to assesee is bad in law: ITAT Sets aside order against Samsung C & T Corporation [Read Order]

The New Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) setaside order against Samsung C & T Corportion as the processing intimation under section 143(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 without giving 30 days time to assesee is bad in law.

Samsung C And T Corporation India Pvt. Ltd, the assesse challenged the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi/ Ld. CIT(A) dated 31.05.2023, arising out of intimation under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), dated 30.03.2019 for Assessment Year 2017-18. The assessee company filed its return of income under section 139(1) of the Act on 29.11.2017 at NIL income which was revised under section 139(5) on 22.03.2018.

In this case, notice under section 143(1)(a) of the Act was issued on 23.03.2019 proposing adjustment of Rs.74,08,038/-, which was passed vide order under section 143(1) dated 30.03.2019. In this regard, by the additional ground, it is contended that the intimation under section 143(1) dated 30.03.2019 was passed without providing a period of 30 days to the assessee to submit its response as mandated under second proviso to Sec 143(1)(a) and therefore the said adjustment is against the principles ofnatural justice and contrary to provisions of law and therefore, the intimation order passed under section 143(1) dated 30.03.2019 by the DCIT, CPC, Bangalore needs to be quashed being void-ab-initio.

Comprehensive Guide of Law and Procedure for Filing of Income Tax Appeals, Click Here

The additional ground raised by the assessee is purely legal in nature and goes to the root of the matter. All the facts for deciding this additional ground of appeal are available on the records. Hence, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Limited vs CIT 229 ITR 383(SC), the additional ground is hereby admitted and taken up for adjudication.

On the basis of facts available, it is seen that intimation under section 143(1) of the Act was passed by the CPC, Bangalore on 30.03.2019, wherein, notice under section 143(1)(a) of the Act was given by the Assessing Officer vide notice dated 23.03.2019. Therefore, thirty days time for filing response by the assessee in this case would have expired on 22.04.2019.

The court agreed with the assessee that screenshot showing that the response by the assessee having been submitted on 23.03.2019 is not correct, because both date of issue and the response submit date is very unlikely to be the same and also in view of the fact that the screenshot on page no.4 of the paper book for AY 2017-18 still displayed ‘submit response’ instead of ‘view response’ as appearing on page no.5 of the paper book on similar response submitted by the assessee for AY 2022-23 against the notice under section 143(1)(a) of the Act dated 14.12.2022.

A two member bench of Yogesh Kumar Us, Judicial Member and Brajesh Kumar Singh, Accountant Member as the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act has been passed on 30.03.2019, without waiting for the response of the assessee for which time available to the assessee was 22.04.2019, as evident from the copy of the notice under section 143(1)(a) dated 23.03.2019 (placed at page number 137 to 138 of the paper book) and the so called response submitted by the assessee on 23.03.2019, being not correct as discussed above.

The court held that intimation order under section 143(1) of the Act dated 30.03.2019 is bad in law and therefore the disallowance of Rs.74,08,038/- made by the Assessing Officer vide the said order is deleted.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates