Case Details: General Mills India (P.) Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax - [2026] 186 taxmann.com 834 (Mumbai-Trib.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Smt. Beena Pillai, Judicial Member & Girish Agrawal, Accountant Member
-
Nikhil Tiwari, CA for the Appellant.
-
Arun Kanti Datta, Sr. DR for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
Assessee filed its return of income for the relevant assessment year. The Centralised Processing Centre (CPC) processed the return under section 143(1) and issued an intimation under section 143(1). Subsequently, a notice under section 143(2) was issued, and the assessment was completed under section 143(3).
While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) adopted the total income determined in the intimation under section 143(1) and further included an amount in the computation sheet that had already been dropped by CPC. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal to the CIT(A). CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, observing that a separate appeal against intimation under section 143(1) and a rectification application under section 154 were already pending.
The matter was carried to the Mumbai Tribunal.
ITAT Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, observing that a separate appeal against intimation under section 143(1) and a rectification application under section 154 were already pending. However, it was noted that, while completing the assessment under section 143(3), the AO adopted the total income determined in the intimation under section 143(1) and also included an amount that had earlier been dropped by CPC.
Thus, the appeal against the assessment order under section 143(3) was maintainable notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal against intimation under section 143(1) and rectification proceedings under section 154.
Both proceedings were required to be heard together to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and duplicity of the addition. Thus, the matter was remitted to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication by passing a speaking order after considering the assessee’s submissions.
List of Cases Referred to
- CIT v. Gujarat Electricity Board [2003] 129 Taxman 65/260 ITR 84 (SC) (para 5)
- Spaco Carburettors India Ltd. v. Raj Kumar, Dy. CIT [2006] 150 Taxman 1/284 ITR 611 (Bombay) (para 5.1)
- SRBC & Co. LLP v. Dy. CIT [IT Appeal No. 236/Kol/2022, dated 24-11-2022] (para 5.2).
The post ITAT Directs Joint Hearing of Sections 143(1) & 143(3) Proceedings appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
