TATA METALIKS LTD. Vs. C.I.T. III
LAWS(CAL)-2014-9-64
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on September 22,2014

Tata Metaliks Ltd. Appellant
VERSUS
C.I.T. Iii Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) 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. 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 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax versus Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. : 291 ITR 500 (SC), in particular paragraph 13 thereof. He submitted by that judgment 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 versus Income Tax Officer & Ors. : 256 CTR (P & H 116) rendered following the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(3.) 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 further particulars or evidence from the assessee in resorting to the provision of Section 143(2) of the said Act. In those circumstances, the assessment stood completed and accepted by the assessee who then had sought to file a revised return on the last day otherwise possible. According to her, the said revised return was not accepted as it could not be in the facts and circumstances of the case. She submitted the order of the Tribunal should not be interfered with.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.