CPC Intimation u/s 143(1)(a) without indicating reasons for rejection of response of assessee

CPC Intimation u/s 143(1)(a) making adjustment without indicating reasons for the rejection of the response of the assessee – ITAT remands case for verification

In a recent judgment, ITAT Delhi set aside the order of CIT(A) where CPC Intimation u/s 143(1)(a) made adjustment without indicating whether any response was received from assessee or reason for the rejection of the response of the assessee. 

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
4444 (2025) (03) abcaus.in ITAT

In the instant case, the assessee had challenged the order passed by the CIT(A) in sustaining the order passed by the DCIT CPC Banglore vide Intimation u/s 143(1) adding back ESI and PF deposited on or before the filing of ITR u/s 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).

Before the Tribunal the assessee submitted that the above adjustment was done by the CPC, Bengaluru without giving a prior intimation about the proposed adjustments and therefore the said intimation was bad in law and may be quashed.

Referring to the intimation, wherein, the details of said intimation to the assessee had been referred, it was submitted that no details of the communication sent regarding the proposed adjustment and the time allowed to the assessee had been mentioned. 

The Tribunal observed that the proviso to section 143(1) states that no adjustments shall be made unless an intimation is given to the assessee of such adjustments either in writing or in electronic mode and further the second proviso states that the response received from the assessee, if any, shall be considered before making any adjustment, and in a case, where no response is received within 30 days of such intimation, such adjustments shall be made.

The notes given above the adjustment u/s 143(1)(a) stated as under;

“Please refer to this office communication dated sent to the email id xxxxxxxxxxxxxx. As there has been no response/the response(s) provided is not acceptable the adjustments(s) as mentioned below are being made to the total income as per the provisions of section 143(1)(a).”

The ITAT noted that in the CPC Intimation u/s 143(1), it was seen that the evidence of intimation about the proposed adjustment under the PF & ESI by the CPC Bengaluru to the assessee had not been mentioned with any specific details i.e. date on which the intimation was sent and the time allowed to the assessee to file its reply.  Further, the appropriate column as to whether there was any response received from the assessee or whether the response provided was not acceptable to the said intimation was also not indicated and no reason whatsoever has been indicated for the rejection of the response of the assessee if at all any received from the assessee.

However, the Tribunal noted that the above plea was not taken by the assessee before the CIT(A), which goes to the root of the matter of this case and requires verification.

Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set-aside and restored to his file for necessary verification in view of the above observation and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• During pendency before settlement commission, assessee have right to contest assessment
• Entire amount of undisclosed money cannot be treated income but only profit embedded
• Penalty confirmed as loading point of the goods was different as declared in E- Way Bill
• Notice u/s 143(2) send by email fifty seconds before signing by AO not a legal notice
• Amount shown payable & receivable by both parties, not unexplained money – ITAT