| Case ID |
22ae72a0-0127-45c1-bdaa-be98e9d1fda4 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
D-2741 of 2016 |
| Decision Date |
May 09, 2006 |
| Hearing Date |
May 09, 2006 |
| Decision |
The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the intimation issued under section 143(1)(a) cannot be treated as an assessment. The court found that the revised return filed by the assessee was valid under section 139(5), as no assessment was made pursuant to the original return. The tribunal's conclusion that the revised return was invalid because it was filed after the intimation was incorrect. Additionally, the reference made to the Valuation Officer was valid under section 142A, and the assessment made by the Assessing Officer was valid. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the tribunal's order was set aside, with the case remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. |
| Summary |
In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Omprakash Bagria (HUF), the Madhya Pradesh High Court examined the validity of an intimation issued under section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and its implications on the assessment process. The court clarified that an intimation does not equate to an assessment, and thus, the taxpayer's revised return filed under section 139(5) was legitimate. This case emphasizes the critical distinction between 'intimation' and 'assessment,' which is crucial for tax practitioners and taxpayers alike. The ruling reinforces the right of taxpayers to submit revised returns within the stipulated time frame when the original return has not been formally assessed. This decision is significant for understanding taxpayer rights and the procedural nuances of tax assessments in India. Keywords: Income-tax Act, assessment year, revised return, tax assessment, legal precedent. |
| Court |
Madhya Pradesh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
A.K. Patnaik, C.J.,
A.M. Sapre, J.
|
| Lawyers |
R.L. Jain,
Miss Vina Mandlik,
P.M. Choudhary
|
| Petitioners |
Commissioner of Income Tax
|
| Respondents |
Omprakash Bagria (HUF)
|
| Citations |
2006 SLD 3265,
(2006) 287 ITR 523
|
| Other Citations |
Kamal Textiles v. ITO [1991] 189 ITR 339,
Apogee International Ltd. v. Union of India [1996] 220 ITR 248,
Pradeep Kumar Harsaran Lal v. Assessing Officer [1998] 229 ITR 46,
Chief CIT (Administration) v. Machine Tool Corpn. of India Ltd. [1993] 201 ITR 101,
Punjab Tractors Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [2002] 254 ITR 242,
Vipan Khanna v. CIT [2002] 255 ITR 220,
Panchmahal Steel Ltd. v. U.A. Joshi, ITO [1994] 210 ITR 723,
Smt. Amiya Bala Paul v. CIT [2003] 262 ITR 407,
CIT v. Sudhish Kumar [2005] 276 ITR 563,
CIT v. Krishan Lal Dua [2005] 277 ITR 477,
R. Rajagopal Reddy v. Padmini Chandrasekharan [1995] 213 ITR 340,
Garikapati Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhry AIR 1957 SC 540,
Siemens India Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [1986] 62 STC 40,
CIT v. Bengal Card Board Industries & Printers (P.) Ltd. [1989] 176 ITR 193
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
143,
139,
142A
|