Case Details

Citation(s)
2014 SLG 1884 2014 SLD 1884 (2014) 368 ITR 643
Calcutta High Court
IT Appeal No. 301 of 2005, SEPTEMBER 22, 2014
SOUMITRA PAL AND ARINDAM SINHA, JJ
J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Sanjoy Bhowmick, Advocate and C.S. Das, Advocate for the Appellant. Ms. A.G. Gutgutia, Advocate for the
Respondent

Tata Metaliks Ltd

v.

Commissioner of IncomE tax, - III, Kolkata

Law:

Section:

JUDGMENT 1. The Court : This appeal was admitted on the following question of law: " Whether, on a true and proper interpretation of the provisions of Sections 139 and 143 and other relevant provisions of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that issue of the intimation under Section 143(1) for the assessment year 1999-2000 on August 08, 2000 amounted to completion of assessment within the meaning of section 139(5) disabling the appellant from filing a revised return and that the revised return filed on March 31, 2001 was belated and invalid?" 2. The order from which the question was formulated for adjudication in appeal was dated 22nd February, 2005 passed by the Tribunal relating to the Assessment Year 1999-2000. 3. Mr. Khaitan, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant assessee, submitted the return for the relevant assessment year was intimated to have been accepted under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 8th August, 2000. According to him, that was not completion of the assessment in relation to such return filed. The assessee sought to file a revised return on 31st March, 2001 which was within the time provided under Section 139(5) of the said Act. He submitted intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the said Act cannot be said to be an assessment relying on the decision reported in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500/161 Taxman 316 (SC), in particular paragraph 13 thereof. He submitted by that judgement it had been held assessment could not be said to have been completed on the issuance of intimation under Section 143(1) of the said Act. He also drew our attention to the judgment in Tarsem Kumar v. ITO [2013] 214 Taxman 70/32 taxmann.com 83 (Punj. & Har.) rendered following the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 4. Ms. Ghutghutia, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Revenue, submitted by the intimation dated 8th August, 2000 the assessee was informed that its original return had been accepted. Refund as raised stood already issued as intimated and thereafter the Assessing Officer did not resort to seeking any…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492