M/S.the G.r.d. Trust,Kalaikadhir Buildings,963 – Avinashi Road,Coimbatore – 641 037 v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), 67A, Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 641 018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21.01.2020CORAMTHE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTHW.P.No.25595 of 2018 andWMP.Nos.29746 & 29749 of 2018 M/s.The G.R.D. Trust,Kalaikadhir Buildings,963 – Avinashi Road,Coimbatore – 641 037.Represented by its Managing TrusteeDr.D.Padmanaban.. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), 67A, Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 641 018. 2.Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Center, Bangalore – 560 500... Respondents Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ ofCertiorari, to call for the records of the 2[nd] Respondent inproceedingsdated15.09.2018inCommunicationNo.CPC/1718/G8/1814054969 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.J.Balachanderfor Mr.S.SaravanakumarFor Respondents : Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan Senior Standing Counsel ORDER The petitioner challenges an intimation dated 15.09.2018 interms of Section 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, adjustingoutstanding demands for assessment year (AY) 2012-2013 of anamount of Rs.16,50,100/- and assessment year (AY) 2015-2016 ofan amount of Rs.1,65,97,390/-. 2.In counter, the respondents fairly states that the demandof Rs.16,50,100/- does not survive any more. As far as thedemand of a sum of Rs.1,65,97,390/- is concerned, it is seenthat the intimation giving rise to such demand was the subjectmatter of an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The Commissioner considers the appeal in ITA No.16/18-19and by order dated 26.07.2018, at para-6.1, states as follows: '6.1. While processing the return by the CPC theamount set apart for specified purpose was treated asincome of the appellant. No reason was given for thisadjustment made u/s.143(1) of the IT Act. Thisadjustment is beyond the scope of section 143(1) of theIT Act. The AO is directed to allow the claim if theappellant has filed Form 10B as provided in Rule 17B ofthe IT Act and it contains the details of amount setapart as claimed by the Appellant.' 4.This finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) to the effectthat the adjustment made is beyond the scope of Section 143(1)has become final and the intimation was thus quashed. However,the Appellate Commissioner proceeds thereafter to issue adirection to the Assessing Officer to allow the claim uponsatisfaction of certain conditions by the petitioner. 5.The learned counsel for the petitioner states that he ischallenging belatedly, the order of the Appellate Commissionerbefore the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal),specifically in regard to the legality or otherwise of thedirection issued by the Commissioner to the Assessing Officer. 6.Meanwhile the Assessing Authority has given effect to theorder of the Appellate Commissioner on 20.08.2018 reiteratingthe order passed under Section 143(1) dated 24.12.2016 andstating that the said order requires no modification. It isconsequent upon this order giving effect that the impugnedintimation has been issued. 7.Since the direction given by the Commissioner in orderdated 26.07.2018 is said to be in the process of beingchallenged before the Tribunal, I refrain from making anyobservations in regard to the same and leave it to the Tribunalto go into the appeal, if and when filed and decide the same inaccordance with law. 8.However, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) statingthat the 143(1) intimation lacks jurisdiction has become finalas admittedly no appeal has been filed against this order by theDepartment before the Tribunal. Thus the impugned Intimation inso far as it relates to the demand raised in Intimation issuedunder Section 143(1) is clearly bad in law and is quashed. 9.This writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently,connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/-Assistant Registrar(CS-VIII) // True Copy// 8.However, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) statingthat the 143(1) intimation lacks jurisdiction has become finalas admittedly no appeal has been filed against this order by theDepartment before the Tribunal. Thus the impugned Intimation inso far as it relates to the demand raised in Intimation issuedunder Section 143(1) is clearly bad in law and is quashed. 9.This writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently,connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/-Assistant Registrar(CS-VIII) // True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar vsTo1. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), 67A, Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 641 018.2. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Center, Bangalore – 560 500.+1cc to Mr.I.Abrar Md.Abdullah, Advocate, SR.No.3952.+1cc to Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, Advocate, SR.No.3871.W.P.No.25595 of 2018andWMP.Nos.29746 & 29749 of 2018PM(CO)CSR: 13.03.2020