CIT Vs. UDAIPUR DISTILLARY CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal was admitted on 24-5-2002 and the following substantial question of law was framed by the court as arising in this appeal as per the suggestions made by the learned counsel for the appellant :

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the respondent urged that the question framed on 24-5-2002 is not the real controversy in this case and appears to have been framed because the fact must not have been brought to the notice of the court that this appeal arises out of proceedings of rectification in intimation issued under section 143(1)(a), as the assessee in his return claimed deduction the amount of cash deposit for obtaining the bank guarantee for satisfying the demand of bottling fee, in case he lost in the pending litigation.

(3.) Subsequent to issuing of intimation, proceedings for regular assessment came to be instituted by the assessing authority by issuing notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. When the assessee received a notice for rectification in intimation, he has raised the contention that once the regular assessment proceedings came to be instituted, the rectification in intimation under section 143(1)(a) remains a provisional assessment and is to give way to the regular assessment which comes at the end of proceedings initiated under section 143(2) and thereafter no rectification in intimation can be made. All questions then are to be determined and additional demand or refund to be made, must follow the regular assessment.