ITAT condemns callous approach of ITD making assessee shuttle between CPC & AO

ITAT condemns irresponsible attitude and callous approach of the income-tax authorities making assessee shuttle between the CPC and jurisdictional AO

In a recent judgment, ITAT Ahmedabad has expressed strong displeasure over the irresponsible attitude and callous approach of the income-tax authorities making assessee shuttle between the CPC and the jurisdictional AO, and each of the authority denying its jurisdiction to resolve the issue.

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
5123 (2026) (04) abacus.in ITAT

The appellant assessee filed its return of income declaring total income from capital gain and from other sources. However, at the time of processing of the return u/s 143(1) of the Act, the CPC issued a defect notice stating that though the assessee had shown receipts from ‘business or profession’ of rupees more than 1 crore, but in the subsequent columns relating to ‘business or profession’ no such receipts were shown and even since said receipts were of more than Rs.1 core, the assessee did not furnish the audit report.

In reply, the assessee stated to the CPC that the assessee had not earned any receipts from ‘business or profession’. It was submitted that the assessee had earned income only from capital gains and from other sources. Therefore, the assessee had not filled any column relating to ‘business or profession’ and further there was no requirement for the assessee to get its accounts audited or to furnish the Audit report.

However, the CPC rejected the contentions of the assesse and treated the return filed by the assessee as invalid for want of Audit Report. etc.

The assessee filed rectification application u/s 154 of the Act to the CPC requesting that there was no defect in the return filed by the assessee and that the assessee had not earned any income from ‘business or profession’ and, hence, was not liable to furnish any tax Audit Report. However, the CPC disposed of the application of the assessee vide order passed stating, “Dear Taxpayer, on perusal of the grievance it is seen that, for the said issue, action vests with Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Hence, you are requested to contact your Jurisdiction Assessing Officer”.

Thereafter, the assessee filed a rectification application u/s 154 of the Act to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. However, the AO vide his order rejected the application of the assessee, stating that jurisdiction to validate the return lied with the CPC.

The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee stating that the Jurisdictional AO had acted correctly within the confines of his jurisdiction and that the jurisdiction vested with the CPC and not with the Jurisdictional AO. He further observed that the issue raised by the assessee required factual determination which was not within the purview of section 154 of the Act and, hence, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

The ITAT noted that the contention of the assessee from the very beginning had been that it had not earned any income from profits and gains of business or profession. Therefore, it was not required to furnish any Audit Report. The revenue submitted that there might be some mistake on the part of the assessee in furnishing the return of income and that is why the CPC had invalidated the return of the assessee.

However, the ITAT opined that even so, the assessee in its rectification application had specifically pleaded that it had not earned any income on account of ‘business or profession’ and it was not required to file any Audit Report. The invalidation of the return of the assessee had caused financial loss to the assessee as the assessee had been denied the refund of the excess tax deposited. The lower authorities were required to go into the contention of the assessee and to find out if the assessee had earned any income from business or profession and then, whether the assessee was required to file the Audit Report or not.

The ITAT further noted that instead of addressing the grievances of the assessee, the lower authorities made the assessee shuttle between the CPC and the jurisdictional AO, and each of the authority was denying its jurisdiction to resolve the issue. The CIT(A) had crossed all limits by mechanically rejecting the appeal of the assessee without going into the merits of the case and thus leading the assessee to come in appeal before the Tribunal.

The ITAT stated that such type of issues could have been resolved at initial stage itself. The irresponsible attitude and callous approach of the income-tax authorities was highly deprecated and accordingly ITAT requested the higher authorities to take corrective steps, so that taxpayers are not harassed in this manner without redressal of their genuine grievances.

Accordingly the ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the file of the jurisdictional AO with a direction to properly look into the matter and consider and verify the plea of the assessee that it had not earned any income from ‘business or profession’ and further that it was not required to file any Audit Report. If the contention is found correct, irrespective of any bonafide mistake made by the assessee in the return of income, the AO will treat the return as validly filed and grant the appropriate allowance, deduction or refund as admissible to the assessee.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• ITAT condemns callous approach of ITD making assessee shuttle between CPC & AO
• AO unjustified in assessing income as per CPC intimation ignoring rectification application
• RBI invites application for scholarship Scheme 2026 for Faculty Members from Institutions
• Term ‘Scholarship’ and ‘stipend’ both serve one purpose and exempt u/s 10(16) – ITAT
• SBI Concurrent Auditor Empanelment of CA Firms for FY 2026-27. Last date 31.05.2026