- (1.)THE petitioner in this petition is a partnership firm carrying on business, according to it, in consumer goods.
(2.)IN this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the intimation dt. 30th Sept. , 1992, issued by the first respondent under Section 143 (1) (a) of the IT Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-B. The petitioner has also prayed for striking down the provisions of Sections 143 (1) (a) and 143 (1a) of the Act and also amendment introduced by Finance Act, 1993, and for other reliefs.
(3.)SRI Sarangan, learned senior counsel appearing along with Sri Ramabhadran for the petitioner, submitted that the provisions of Sections 143 (1) (a) and 143 (1a) of the Act are liable to be declared as unconstitutional in view of the fact that as the provisions of Sections 143 (1) (a) and 143 (1a) do not provide for an opportunity being given to an assessee before issuing an intimation under Section 143 (1) (a) and an order under Section 143 (1a ). According to Sri sarangan since the valuable rights of an assessee would be affected, it is implied that an opportunity is required to be given to an assessee, who is likely to be affected by such intimations/orders. He further submitted that in the instant case the prima facie adjustment made by the first respondent disallowing the allowance claimed by the petitioner is totally erroneous in law. It is his further submission that, though the petitioner made an application under Section 154 for rectification, the same was disallowed without any justification and the appeal filed against the said order also came to be disallowed by the second respondent. He further submitted that the second respondent has disallowed the appeal filed by the petitioner following his earlier order, which came to be set aside by the Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, by its order dt. 6th Nov. , 1996, made in ITA No. 1110/bang/1993 in the case of Smt. Ajith Kour v. Asstt. CIT. Therefore, according to the learned senior counsel, since the order passed by the second respondent in similar matter came to be set aside by the Tribunal taking the view that it was not permissible for the original authority to take the view that the assessee (AO) was not justified in disallowing the claim for the deduction of loss and also in charging additional tax in his intimation issued under section 143 (1) (a), the orders impugned are liable to be quashed.