AA520 Veerappampalayam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited Vs DCIT (Madras high court)
The scope of an ‘intimation’ u/s 143 (1) (a) of the Act, extends only to the making of adjustments based upon errors apparent from the return of income and patent from the record
The scope of an ‘intimation’ under Section 143 (1) (a) of the Act, extends to the making of adjustments based upon errors apparent from the return of income and patent from the record. Thus to say that the scope of ‘incorrect claim’ should be circumscribed and restricted by the Explanation which employs the term ‘entry’ would, in my view, not be correct and the provision must be given full and unfettered play. The explanation cannot curtail or restrict the main thrust or scope of the provision and due weightage as well as meaning has to be attributed to the purposes of Section 143(1)(a) of the Act.
The provisions of Section 80AC(ii) make it clear that any deduction that is claimed under Part C of Chapter VIA would be admissible only if the return of income in that case were filed within the prescribed due date. Thus no claim under any of the provisions of Part C of Chapter VIA would be admissible in the case of a belated return. There is no dispute on this position. The date of filing of a return of income would be apparent on the face of return and upon a perusal thereof, it would be clear as to whether the return is a valid return, having been filed within the statutory time limit, or a belated one. This is mechanical exercise and one that can be carried out by the CPC, very much within the scope of Section 143 (1) (a) (ii) of the Act.
The conduct of the petitioners is also relevant. Not only have the returns been filed belatedly but the petitioners have also chosen not to co-operate in the conduct of assessment. They are admittedly in receipt of the defect notices from the CPC, but have not bothered to respond to the same. The writ petitions have themselves been filed belatedly and after the elapse of more than six to eight months from the dates of impugned orders, in all cases. It is only when the Revenue has initiated proceedings for recovery by attachment of bank accounts have the petitioners approached this Court. This factor also strengthens my resolve that these are not matters warranting interference in terms of Article under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, quite apart from the decision that I have arrived at on the legal issue.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
These 16 writ petitions have been filed by Co-operative Societies, being either Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Societies, Thrift Societies, Employees Societies or other categories of Co-operative Societies, and challenge intimations under Section 143 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’). The year of assessment in all cases is 2018-19.
2. The admitted facts are:
(i) None of the Societies have filed returns of income within the time stipulated under Section 139 of the Act and returns have been filed belatedly on various dates,
(ii) The Central Processing Centre (CPC), upon receipt of the returns filed, had issued communications proposing an adjustment in terms of Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. The reason for the proposed adjustment is ‘error/incorrect claim/inconsistency’ and the details are set out in Part A of the communication reading as follows:
PART -A
Adjustment u/s.143(1)(a)
