RAJIV PUJARA,KOLKATA V. DCIT, CIR 1(1), KOLKATA

ITA 239/KOL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Rajiv Pujara, a salaried employee, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which upheld the intimation issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The intimation adjusted the assessee's income by including various exempt incomes such as HRA, Special Allowance, Sodexo Food Meal Coupon, and medical reimbursement, which the assessee contested. The Tribunal examined whether these adjustments were permissible under section 143(1), considering the nature of the adjustments and the responses provided by the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 126028 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAILEN SAMADDER
• Assessee Lawyers: SOUMITRA CHOUDHURY
• Keywords: Salary income; Wrong claim; Earning of tax free income; FORM 26AS
• Section: 250; 154; 143(1)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.239/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajiv Pujara Flat 4B, Shubham, 89, Southern Avenue, Kolkata-700029. (PAN: ALXPP 3603N) Vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Sailen Samadder, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 22.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 O R D E R Per Bench : The captioned appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”] vide order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/10709768(1) dated 06.12.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2017-18. 2. Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Sailen Samadder, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue. 3. It was the submission of the Ld. AR that the assessee is a salaried employee and the assessee filed his return of income disclosing a total income from salary of Rs.64,61,400/-. It was the 2 ITA No.239/Kol/2025 Rajiv Pujara, AY 2017-18 submission that intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act came to be issued adopting the income of the income of the assessee at Rs.77,37,600/- . It was the submission that the assessee had filed a rectification application u/s. 154 of the Act, which also came to be rejected. It was the submission that the Form 16 in the case of assessee showed the total income of the assessee at Rs.64,30,875/- whereas the gross salary was shown at Rs.77,66,800/-. It was the submission that the CPC in the intimation u/s. 143(1) had made adjustments to the exempt income claimed by the assessee representing the HRA, Special Allowance, Sodexo Food Meal Coupon and medical reimbursement. It was the submission that these adjustments were not permissible in an intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act in so far as the said adjustments were not provided for in the said section. It was neither an arithmetical mistake nor a wrong claim. It was the submission that the intimation passed u/s. 143(1) of the Act is liable to be quashed. 4. In reply, the Ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that the claim of Sodexo Food and Meal Coupon had errors, similar is the claim in regard to the HRA. It was also the submission that the reimbursement of driver’s salary was also rightly disallowed. It was the submission that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is liable to be upheld. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in para 6 shows that the Ld. CIT(A) has taken a stand that the Form 26AS statement had primacy over the Form 16 which is not correct. In an intimation u/s. 143(1), there is no question of the primacy either of Form 26AS or Form 16. The provisions of section 143(1) are very explicit in regard to what are the adjustments that are permissible in an intimation u/s. 143(1). Admittedly, before issuance of intimation u/s. 143(1) a notice has been issued to the assessee and the assessee has also responded to 3 ITA No.239/Kol/2025 Rajiv Pujara, AY 2017-18 the same by disagreeing with the communication and its proposed adjustment. Once, there is a disagreement, the issue become a debatable issue and admittedly, such adjustments cannot be made in an intimation u/s. 143(1). As the adjustments made in the intimation itself are debatable issue, we are of the view that the intimation issued in the case of the assessee itself is unsustainable and the same is liable to be quashed and we do so. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order is dictated and pronounced in the open court. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajesh Kumar) (George Mathan) Accountant Member) Judicial Member Dated: 22nd April, 2025 JD, Sr. P.S. Copy to: 1. The Appellant: Shri Rajiv Pujara 2. The Respondent: DCIT, Circle-1(1), Kolkata 3. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr. CIT- , Kolkata 5. DR, ITAT, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata 6. Guard file. //True Copy// By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata "