Must an assessee first apply for rectification to CPC before appealing against a s.143(1) intimation?
CPC made adjustments in a s.143(1) intimation without giving the assessee an opportunity, and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the footing that the assessee should have applied online for rectification first. The Tribunal held that an appeal lies to the CIT(A) against a s.143(1) intimation and that there is no requirement in law to approach CPC for rectification before appealing.
Decided by the ITAT on 2020-01-15, reported as ITA No. 373/Agra/2018 (ITAT Agra); ABCAUS 3219 (2020) (01) ITAT; AY 2016-17. It bears on section 246A, section 143, section 154 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Appeals matters.
Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The assessee filed its return for assessment year 2016-17 along with the audit report. CPC processed the return under section 143(1) and disallowed certain expenses without giving the assessee an opportunity to respond. Instead of filing an online rectification application, the assessee appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal, holding that the assessee ought first to have sought rectification from CPC.
An appeal lies to the Commissioner (Appeals) against an intimation under section 143(1) where the assessee denies his liability. There is no requirement in law to approach CPC for rectification of the order before doing so, and the Commissioner (Appeals) wrongly held that no appeal lay against the CPC intimation. The matter was restored for adjudication on merits.
Section 246A lists the intimation among appealable orders, and the statutory right of appeal is not conditional on exhausting the rectification machinery in section 154. Rectification and appeal are alternative, not sequential, remedies; the CPC's own advice to use the online rectification facility is administrative convenience and cannot override the Act. Treating rectification as a precondition would also allow limitation for the appeal to run out while the assessee pursued a remedy the statute did not require.
There is no such requirement in law to approach the CPC for rectification of the order
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppCPC made adjustments in a s.143(1) intimation without giving the assessee an opportunity, and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the footing that the assessee should have applied online for rectification first. The Tribunal held that an appeal lies to the CIT(A) against a s.143(1) intimation and that there is no requirement in law to approach CPC for rectification before appealing. This was decided by the ITAT and bears on section 246A, section 143, section 154 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as ITA No. 373/Agra/2018 (ITAT Agra); ABCAUS 3219 (2020) (01) ITAT; AY 2016-17. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Where CPC has made a s.143(1)(a) adjustment, diarise the 30-day appeal period from service of the intimation and do not let a pending rectification request consume it.
The assessee filed its return for assessment year 2016-17 along with the audit report. CPC processed the return under section 143(1) and disallowed certain expenses without giving the assessee an opportunity to respond. Instead of filing an online rectification application, the assessee appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal, holding that the assessee ought first to have sought rectification from CPC. The matter was decided on 2020-01-15 by the ITAT. On those facts the ITAT held as follows. An appeal lies to the Commissioner (Appeals) against an intimation under section 143(1) where the assessee denies his liability. There is no requirement in law to approach CPC for rectification of the order before doing so, and the Commissioner (Appeals) wrongly held that no appeal lay against the CPC intimation. The matter was restored for adjudication on merits.
Section 246A lists the intimation among appealable orders, and the statutory right of appeal is not conditional on exhausting the rectification machinery in section 154. Rectification and appeal are alternative, not sequential, remedies; the CPC's own advice to use the online rectification facility is administrative convenience and cannot override the Act. Treating rectification as a precondition would also allow limitation for the appeal to run out while the assessee pursued a remedy the statute did not require. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "There is no such requirement in law to approach the CPC for rectification of the order"
It was decided by the ITAT on 2020-01-15 and is reported as ITA No. 373/Agra/2018 (ITAT Agra); ABCAUS 3219 (2020) (01) ITAT; AY 2016-17. Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A Tribunal decision binds the assessing officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) within that Tribunal's jurisdiction, and is persuasive before other benches. It is not binding on a High Court, and a contrary co-ordinate bench decision will be argued against you, so check whether the point has been taken the other way before you build a reply around it. On section 246A, section 143, section 154, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It cuts both ways and is cited by both sides. An appeal lies to the Commissioner (Appeals) against an intimation under section 143(1) where the assessee denies his liability. There is no requirement in law to approach CPC for rectification of the order before doing so, and the Commissioner (Appeals) wrongly held that no appeal lay against the CPC intimation. The matter was restored for adjudication on merits. It arises in Appeals matters, on section 246A, section 143, section 154 of the Income Tax Act 1961. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. File the appeal against the intimation and, if useful, pursue s.154 rectification in parallel - they are alternatives, not steps. In Form 35, state that the appeal is against the s.143(1) intimation and that liability is denied, so the maintainability question is answered on the face of the form. If the CIT(A) dismisses on the ground that rectification should have been sought first, take that as a distinct ground before the ITAT. Where the adjustment was made without the s.143(1)(a) proviso intimation/response opportunity, plead that as an independent ground.
Still good law. A separate check found the same holding reported independently in January 2020 (an intimation under section 143(1) is an appealable order under section 246A and the CIT(A) was wrong to require a CPC rectification first), and later Tribunal authority continuing to treat the s.143(1) intimation as separately appealable. No contrary High Court decision on the point was found in this check. That finding was checked against a published source, which is linked on this page, on 2026-08-19. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
An appeal lies to the Commissioner (Appeals) against an intimation under section 143(1) where the assessee denies his liability. There is no requirement in law to approach CPC for rectification of the order before doing so, and the Commissioner (Appeals) wrongly held that no appeal lay against the CPC intimation. The matter was restored for adjudication on merits.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
How wide are the first appellate authority's powers when it disposes of an appeal?
An amendment adds a new levy. Does it reach back to earlier years?
The provision can be read two ways. Which reading wins?
Your appeal is late. How strictly will 'sufficient cause' be read?