| Case ID |
036399e6-24df-4218-9693-7307b584429b |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
|
| Decision Date |
|
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court held that the intimation issued under section 143(1)(a) cannot be rectified under section 154 after the issuance of notice under section 143(2). This decision aligns with the views expressed by three High Courts, affirming the legal principle that rectification procedures are not consistent with subsequent notices for assessment. The ruling emphasizes the importance of adhering to procedural norms in tax assessments, ensuring clarity and consistency in the application of the law. |
| Summary |
In this landmark case decided by the Calcutta High Court, the central issue revolved around the interpretation of the Income-tax Act, particularly regarding the rectification of mistakes under section 154. The court examined whether an intimation issued under section 143(1)(a) could be rectified after a notice under section 143(2) had been issued. The judges, Ajoy Nath Ray and Indira Banerjee, ultimately ruled that such rectification is not permissible. This case is significant for taxpayers and legal practitioners, as it clarifies the procedural limitations on rectifying tax assessments. The court's decision is in line with precedents set by other High Courts, reinforcing the need for adherence to established legal frameworks in tax matters. The ruling not only affects the parties involved but also sets a precedent for future cases, ensuring that taxpayers are aware of their rights and the limitations imposed by the law. Legal professionals, including lawyers and advocates, must take note of this ruling as it has implications for the practice of tax law and the management of client assessments. |
| Court |
Calcutta High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Coventry Spring & Co. Ltd.
|
| Judges |
Ajoy Nath Ray,
Indira Banerjee
|
| Lawyers |
Nizamuddin,
J.P. Khaitan
|
| Petitioners |
Commissioner of Income Tax
|
| Respondents |
Coventry Spring & Co. Ltd.
|
| Citations |
2002 SLD 2697,
(2002) 257 ITR 632
|
| Other Citations |
CIT v. Arihant Industries Ltd. [2002] 255 ITR 458 (Punj. & Har.),
Gujarat Poly-Avx Electronics Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [1996] 222 ITR 140 (Guj.),
CIT v. Punjab National Bank [2001] 249 ITR 763 (Delhi)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
154,
143(1)(a),
143(2)
|